Datasets:
Fawazzx
/
10K

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
2
id
int64
394
1.89B
cases
stringlengths
15
383k
labels
stringlengths
38
1.08k
instruction
stringclasses
1 value
92,626,619
Heard on the question of grant of bail.This is the first bail application preferred by the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail during trial.Learned counsel for the applicant at the outset has drawn the attention of this Court towards order dated 15/01/2018 passed in M.Cr.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the application for grant of bail.He has read out the statements available in the case diary. -2-M. Cr.C. No.3005/2018 This Court on 15/01/2018 vide M.Cr.C.No.28625/2017 has passed the following order:-"Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.Mr. Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent State.This application u/S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the applicant Navneet Singh who is in custody since 15/12/2017 in connection with Crime No.699/2017 registered at P.S. MIG Indore for commission of offence punishable u/S. 420, 467, 468, 471, 511 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.The allegation against the applicant is that he has presented a forged and fabricated cheque at the State Bank of India Branch AB Road and the Bank Officers, as the cheque was forged and fabricated have taken action in the matter.The cheque was not deposited and FIR has been lodged against the applicant.The applicant has stated before the Police Authorities that the cheque was given to him by one Varun Dubey and Varun Dubey is also a co-accused in respect of the crime in question.Learned counsel for the respondent - State has has read out the statements available in the case diary.He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail.It has been stated that it was the present applicant who came with a forged and fabricated cheque at the Branch and, therefore, a crime has been registered against him, however, the fact remains that the cheque was ultimately not deposited in the account of the applicant nor in the account of Varun Dubey.This Court has carefully gone through the statement available in the case diary and is of the considered opinion that the present application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly hereby allowed.Applicant Navneet Singh is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1.00 lac (Rs. One lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court on the dates fixed in this behalf.Certified Copy, as per Rules."M. Cr. C. No.3005/2018 This Court in light of the aforesaid order, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the circumstances of the case and after going through the statements available in the case diary, is of the opinion that the present bail petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.Certified copy as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Tej Prakash Vyas 2018.02.01 18:35:46 -08'00'
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
92,627,413
Piyush Singhal, Adv.and ASI Sanjeev, PS Seemapuri.The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant on 15.09.2016 was at her maternal house when around 4pm, petitioner/accused Smt. Seema arrived and started abusing the respondent No.2/complainant and dragged her outside by her hair and moved her to her aunt's house.Thereafter, all the other petitioners/accused persons arrived there and indulged in beating and abusing the complainant.The complainant's mother and sister also reached the spot and were beaten and abused by all the accused persons.Through Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC for State with Mr.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.(Oral)The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh.Sultan, Smt. Zareena Khatoon, Sh.Sarfuddin, Sh.Shamshuddin, Smt. Seema Malita and Smt. Parkhi Bhati for quashing of FIR No.872/2016, under Sections 341/323/354-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Seemapuri, Delhi on the basis of mediation proceedings at Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma, Delhi arrived at between the petitioners and Respondent No. 2, namely, Smt. Haseen Jahan.2. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no. 2 present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant in the FIR in question W.P (CRL) 920/2017 Page 1 of 7 by SI Pancham Kumar.W.P (CRL) 920/2017 Page 1 of 7All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent upon the intervention of the respective family members of both parties.Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question may be brought to an end.In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statement made by the Respondent No. 2 the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.872/2016 under Sections 341/323/354-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station, Seemapuri, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
92,629,565
Case of the prosecution 34.1 The case of the CBI is that Anil Wadhwa, Yashpal Manocha and Kavita Kapur, wife of co-accused Pradeep Kapur entered into a partnership agreement for undertaking the business of running hotels and restaurants in the name of M/s A.P.Y.Hoteliers & Developers.The principal place of business was 756, CA Apartments, Paschim Vihar, Delhi.The said firm took on licence basis an office space no.RMTT-30A on the third floor (above the 2nd floor and below the terrace) of Rajendra Mahavira Tower-II situated on Plot Nos.32 and 33, Community Centre, A-Block, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi -110 063 from M/s Jaina Properties & Finance Ltd. and others.Rev.P.Nos.340/08, 371/08, 380/08, 456/08 Page 26 of 61 34.2 As per the terms of the licence deed, the total monthly rent was Rs.32,500/- and the deed was valid for 33 months.It appears that even at the time of executing the licence deed, it was acknowledged that the licencee proposed to erect a lift.34.3 As per terms of the licence deed, the licencee was also not entitled to carry out any addition, alteration or construction in the premises.The licencee also agreed "not to encroach on any common passages, public corridors and the terrace."34.4 M/s A.P.Y.Hoteliers & Developers entered into an agreement dated 2 nd Crl.According to the CBI, in April 2003 a further sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs was paid.In the second week of December 2002, M/s A.P.Y.Hoteliers & Developers commenced construction work for the installation of the lift.The structural and unit work i.e. fabrication and erection of M.S. lift well which comprised of work up to the platform level excluding platform machinery was given to M/s Engineers and Contractors.Page 27 of 6134.5 It appears that on 14th December, 2002, soon after the work on the construction of the lift commenced, a complaint was made to the SHO, Police Station Paschim Vihar by M/s Surya Estates Pvt. Ltd. having its office at 30 & 31, Community Centre, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.A copy of the said complaint was also endorsed to the Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Director (Buildings), DDA.The said Inspection Report, inter alia, noted:The elevation of the building on plot.33 is being changed.Projected steel blade on outside of the boundary of the plot at 2nd and 3rd floor.Rev.P.Nos.340/08, 371/08, 380/08, 456/08 Page 28 of 61Page 28 of 61Foundation of columns being erected in front of plot no 32 and 33 unauthorisedly on public land to erect some heavy structure on that, in future."An order was passed on 6th February, 2003 by Subhash Sharma for removal of the encroachment.34.8 When M/s A.P.Y.Hoteliers & Developers learnt in the second week of February 2003 of the proposed demolition, they discussed the matter with one Ved Prakash Kaushik, a co-accused, who was also known as `Panditji.Panditji claimed that he knew Subhash Sharma and that he could help them.According to the CBI, although Panditji was an employee of the NDMC, he knew Subhash Crl.Rev.P.Nos.340/08, 371/08, 380/08, 456/08 Page 29 of 61 Sharma and had access to him in the DDA.He informed Subhash Sharma that there was a party who was willing to spend Rs.20 to 25 lakhs for regularizing the unauthorized construction in Paschim Vihar.Subhash Sharma is stated to have noted the name and mobile number of Pradeep Kapur given to him by Panditji.34.9 On the same day, Subhash Sharma telephonically informed co-accused Dharambir Khattar,a property dealer, about Panditjis visit to him as well as the willingness of the party to pay Rs.20 to 25 lakhs for regularization of the unauthorized construction of the lift at Paschim Vihar.He also passed on to Khattar the name and mobile number of Pradeep Kapur.It appears that Dharambir Khattar had provided to Subhash Sharma the mobile telephone of his wife Smt.Nirmal Rani with the office address of Dharambir Khattar at 431, Mathura Road.Page 29 of 6134.11 On 14th February, 2003 itself at about 9 pm, Khattar contacted Pradeep Kapur and gave his address to the latter.Between 15th to 20th February, 2003, Pradeep Kapur spoke frequently to Panditji.On 20th February, 2003, Pradeep Kapur, Yashpal Manocha and Anil Wadhwa proceeded to DDA Office with Panditji in Pradeep Kapurs vehicle.However, they were unable to meet Subhash Sharma.Nevertheless, Panditji met Subhash Sharma at the latters office and reiterated to him that the party was willing to spend at least Rs.20 to 25 lakhs to get the unauthorized construction regularized.Subhash Sharma then informed Panditji that the engineers involved would do the work only after Crl.Rev.P.Nos.340/08, 371/08, 380/08, 456/08 Page 30 of 61 taking some bribe money and claimed that he could not help.It is stated that on the night of 20th February, 2003, Subhash Sharma called Dharambir Khattar informing him of Panditjis visit and their conversation.Khattar was advised to contact one Ahuja who was the concerned Executive Engineer of the area and to offer him Rs.2 to 4 lakhs to give a favourable report.It is stated that the diary recovered from Panditji shows an entry on 21 st February, 2003 to the effect that "in the evening Pradeep Kapur also visits to discuss about the DDA land but assures to do so in this way we settled account."Page 30 of 6134.12 On 24th February, 2003, Subhash Sharma spoke to Dharambir Khattar on the telephone enquiring if there had been any negotiation with Pradeep Kapur.Khattar informed Subhash Sharma that Pradeep Kapur was not interested in negotiating.This led to Pradeep Kapur speaking to Panditji soon thereafter.On the night of 25th April, 2003, Subhash Sharma told Khattar that Panditji had informed him Khattar that Pradeep Kapur was not willing to negotiate.He wanted a meeting on the 26 th February, 2003 but Panditji declined as he said he was busy for one or two days.Panditji visited the DDA Office on 26th February, 2003 and spoke to Subhash Sharma.During the meeting, Subhash Sharma warned Panditji that either party Crl.This was followed by various calls between Panditji, Dharambir Khattar, Pradeep Kapur, Anil Wadhwa and Yashpal Manocha in support of which the mobile telephone records are being relied upon by CBI.34.13 On 27th February, 2003 at about 11.15 am, a demolition team of LM Section, DDA headed by Assistant Engineer, Jiten Puri reached Police Station Paschim Vihar.On learning this, Pradeep Kapur called up Panditji on his mobile but learnt that the latter was out of station.Pradeep Kapur then called up the Junior Engineer and requested for Subhash Sharmas telephone number.Thereafter, Pradeep Kapur rang up Subhash Sharma at around 1.44 pm informing him of the arrival of the demolition team.Subhash Sharma is stated to have rebuked Pradeep Kapur stating that despite a man being sent, no interest was shown in negotiating.When Pradeep Kapur informed Subhash Sharma that no one had contacted him, Subhash Sharma informed Pradeep Kapur that someone would contact him soon.Thereafter, Pradeep Kapur was asked to hand over the phone to the in-charge of the demolition team and inform him that the Vice Chairman was on line.Subhash Sharma then directed Jiten Puri to return with the demolition team and therefore defer the days programme.Jiten Puri then immediately called up the DD (LM) to confirm that he had, in fact, been called by Vice Chairman.One Israr Khan, UDC confirmed the same from Kishore Singh, Private Secretary to the Vice Chairman.Pradeep Kapur then called up Subhash Sharma again and informed him that the officials of the demolition team needed the order to be confirmed from their Supervisory Officer i.e. DD (LM).On this, Subhash Sharma asked Pradeep Kapur to request Crl.Rev.P.Nos.340/08, 371/08, 380/08, 456/08 Page 32 of 61 the DD (LM) to talk to him.In turn, DD (LM) has ordered by his Commissioner to confirm from Subhash Sharma himself that he had issued orders for the withdrawal of the demolition party.On such confirmation, DD (LM) directed Jiten Puri and the demolition team to return.Subhash Sharma had called up the Commissioner (LM) informing him that he had recalled the demolition team on the request from Panditji.On returning to the headquarters, the Assistant Engineer Jiten Puri placed the above facts on file and submitted the same to the DD (LM) and Commissioner (LM) who further sent the file to the Vice Chairman for confirmation.On hearing about the huge amount, Pradeep Kapur, Anil Wadhwa and Yashpal Manocha refused to negotiate saying that they did not have the capacity for paying such a huge amount and that they could only pay between Rs.2 to 3 lakhs.They left soon thereafter.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?Background of the Lift CaseThe present batch of four revision petitions arise from a common charge sheet filed by the CBI in RC No. 25(A)/2003-CBI/ACB/New Delhi.This concerns the unauthorised construction of a lift at a commercial complex at Mahavira Crl.Rev.P.Nos.340/08, 371/08, 380/08, 456/08 Page 2 of 61 Towers, IIIrd Floor, Paschim Vihar and is hereafter referred to as the `lift case.Anil Wadhwa and Yashpal Manocha, the other two partners of the said firm are accused Nos. 5 and 6 respectively.The gist of the case is that the accused acted in criminal conspiracy to commit the aforementioned offences whereby Subhash Sharma used his official position to prevent the demolition of the unauthorised construction of the lift in the commercial complex and subsequently to get it authorized.Page 2 of 61According to the CBI, the facts and evidence gathered during the investigation revealed disclosed the commission by the accused of offences punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7, 8, 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) and Section 15 of PCA and substantive offences against some of them.By the impugned order on charge dated 8th April 2008, after discussing the materials gathered by the CBI, the learned Special Judge, CBI discharged accused Yashpal Manocha and held that charges for the aforementioned offences should be framed against the remaining accused.By the subsequent order dated 16th April 2008 the learned Special Judge framed charges against each of the petitioners for the Crl.Rev.P.Nos.340/08, 371/08, 380/08, 456/08 Page 3 of 61 aforementioned offences.Page 3 of 61The submissions of Mr.S.K.Rungta, learned Advocate on behalf of Dharambir Khattar, Mr.S.K.Saxena, learned Advocate on behalf of Subhash Sharma, Mr.H.P.Sharma, learned Advocate on behalf of Ved Prakash Sharma, Ms.Neelam Grover, learned Advocate on behalf of Pradeep Kapur and Anil Wadhwa and Mr.34. Appeal.- (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Crl.Rev.P.Nos.340/08, 371/08, 380/08, 456/08 Page 8 of 61 Code, an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or oral, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.This is evident from the following clause in the Licence Deed dated which reads as under:-Page 26 of 61The videography and photographs taken by the CBI on site in April 2003 revealed the existence of a lift structure erected on the pavement adjacent to Plot No.32-33, Paschim Vihar, Delhi.The DD entries in the police station also confirmed the Jiten Puri along with his team had gone to Police Station Paschim Vihar on 27th February, 2003 for demolition and had returned on that day itself without carrying out the demolition.34.14 The call intrercept showed that after receiving the first call from Pradeep Kapur, Subhash Sharma immediately called up Dharambir Khattar at around 1.45 pm informing him that `liftwala man had called and was begging for their lives to be saved and that he had told Pradeep Kapur that someone would speak to Pradeep Kapur rightaway.Page 31 of 61Page 32 of 6134.15 Pradeep Kapur realized that it was Dharambir Khattar who was functioning as an agent on behalf of Subhash Sharma and called him up and apologized Dharambir Khattar on the same day at 5.00 pm along with Yashpal Manocha and Anil Wadhwa at the 431, Mathura Road Office.Dharambir Crl.Rev.P.Nos.340/08, 371/08, 380/08, 456/08 Page 33 of 61 Khattar informed them that there were 11 or 12 officials of the DDA who had to be paid Rs.2 lakhs each since the file had to go to two offices and that the total deal would work out between Rs.25 to 30 lakhs.Khattar then called Subhash Sharma and apprised him of the developments.Later, Panditji offered to go and negotiate for reduction of the amount with the Vice Chairman and on 4th March, 2003, he met the Vice Chairman accompanied by Anil Wadhwa.Subhash Sharma then explained that the money had to be distributed among 11 to 12 officers and that even if each was to be paid Rs.1 lakh, the total sum worked out between Rs.12 to 13 lakhs.However, on persuasion of Panditji, the amount was finalized at Rs.10 lakhs.The above information was passed on to Subhash Sharma by Khattar on the same day.Khattar then contacted Pradeep Kapur and asked that the aforementioned amount was finalized with Panditji should be paid so that work could be done to ensure the regularization of the unauthorized construction as well as allotment of DDA land for the purposes of the said construction.Commissioner (LM) and DD (LM) were summoned to the office of the Vice Chairman, DDA on 6th March, 2003 and were told by Subhash Sharma that the case of M/s APY Hoteliers and Developers recommended by Panditji and they were asked if anything could be done with the unauthorized construction.The DD (LM) told him that in a similar case, many people had lost their lives and that it was unsafe.The lift was to be built adjoining the building so that safety could be ensured.On this, Sharma gave an assurance that he would allot space adjacent the building on receiving the application.The CBI has collected the details of the call intercepts on 6/7 th March, 2003 of the calls between Pradeep Kapur and Dharambir Khattar.Pradeep Kapur met Dharambir Khattar on 8th March, 2003 to submit the application along with other papers and also the money which had been arranged.A note was initiated in the file on 11th March, 2003 by Subhash Sharma addressed to the Commissioner (LD) enclosing the application of M/s APY Hoteliers and Developers in connection with the allotment of land adjoining the building for the purpose of installation of the lift.Subhash Sharma desired that the case would be examined and sought information whether DDA could consider his request.The certificate obtained by Pradeep Kapur from the lift maker assuring the safety of the lift was also enclosed.Page 33 of 61Page 34 of 6134.16 On 17th March, 2003, Subhash Sharma discussed the lift matter with Director (CL) and Director (Building) alongwith JD(Building).They informed Subhash Sharma that the space could not be allotted to M/s A.P.Y.Hoteliers & Developers on licence basis.The DDA (CL) submitted his report on the note initiated by Subhash Sharma.This report dated 11/12th March, 2003 mentioned that the construction was on public land without prior permission and for Crl.Rev.P.Nos.340/08, 371/08, 380/08, 456/08 Page 35 of 61 specific personal use which was illegal and may set a precedent for the future.He recommended immediate removal of the construction.With this note, he apprehended that he may be posted out since the note was not favourable to M/s APY Hoteliers and Developers.With such a note, Subhash Sharma could not found any grounds to regularize the unauthorised structure.Page 35 of 61The RC was registered by the CBI in the Lift Case on 3 rd April 2003 on the basis of source information.The charge sheet was filed on 15th July 2004 along with the documents.A question arose whether the accused would be entitled to be supplied the copies of the call intercepts on the hard discs of the computers in the CBIs office.This Court has already held the revision petitions not to be maintainable and is proceeding to consider the arguments on merits hereafter.Submissions on merits on behalf of the petitionersAs regards, Dharambir Khattar, the arguments advanced by learned counsel were as under:Page 36 of 61(i) The procedure outlined in CBI Manual as regards `source information has not been complied with in the present case.The registration of the FIR without following the prescribed procedure and the consequent filing of a charge sheet stands vitiated.(ii) The FIR was registered belatedly.If in fact the CBI knew of the commission of the offence from the date of interception of the first call in the lift case on 14th February 2003, it ought not to have waited till April, 2003 to register the FIR.On behalf of Pradeep Kapur and Anil Wadhwa, it was submitted as under:(a) APY Hoteliers and Developers were only tenants in the property for a limited period of 33 months.The total cost of installation of the lift was for a sum of Rs. 6.70 lakhs and therefore the question of paying Rs.10 lakhs as bribe was highly improbable.(b) The learned Special Judge has discharged Yashpal Manocha the co- accused in the case.Pradeep Kapur is in the same position as Yashpal Manocha.(c) The intercepted calls did not show the involvement of the petitioner at all and the particular conversations between the petitioner No.1 and other co-accused do not show him as being part of any criminal conspiracy.Rev.P.Nos.340/08, 371/08, 380/08, 456/08 Page 39 of 61 The conversations on the other hand show that the petitioner has never agree to join the conspiracy and showed no keenness in contacting accused Nos.1 and 2, i.e., Subhash Sharma and Dharambir Khattar.On the other hand it was Subhash Sharma and Khattar who were pursuing the petitioner for a bribe and not vice-versa.Page 39 of 61(g) Although the prosecution has relied upon 26 calls in the charge sheet, CDs delivered to the petitioner contained only 25 calls.The call dated 4 th March 2003 is missing.(h) It is submitted that the learned Special Judge has erred in framing charging against the petitioners under Section 8 PC Act when they were not instrumental in obtaining/accepting illegal gratification from the firm.The contentions on behalf of Ved Prakash are as under:(a) It is not in dispute that the Ved Prakash (Pandit ji) was himself not an employee of the DDA and was perhaps helping out Subhash Sharma in some of his private religious matters.He was in close with the Dharambir Khattar as well.The petitioners therefore knowingly committed an illegal act and therefore could not escape the consequences.41.7 As regards Ved Prakash, it is submitted that whether in fact he was involved in the negotiations that took place between Subhash Sharma on the one hand and Dharambir Khattar on the other will emerge only during the trial when evidence is led by the prosecution.As of now, the court has only to see whether there is sufficient material to draw a strong suspicion against the petitioner for the commission of the offence.Page 43 of 61Page 44 of 61The trial court has, at the stage of the charge, to satisfy itself whether there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused.The veracity and the effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce, is not to be meticulously examined at this stage.43.11 The matter can be looked at from another angle as well.43.13 The learned counsel for the CBI has made a reference to the judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 25th January 2006 passed in Crl.(d) The questions concerning the validity of the tapes and transcripts of the intercepted conversations, or their admissibility cannot be decided at this stage and will necessarily have to be determined only at the stage of trial.The CBI is permitted to draw the attention of the trial court to the above error in the charge framed and ask for it to be corrected.(f) On merits, there is sufficient material on record to hold that there is grave suspicion against each of the petitioners for the commission of the offences with which they have been charged.
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
92,639,228
Josaph, made in Memo No.1044/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 19.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.[V.D.P.,J.] [G.C.,J.] 21.04.2014Index: Yes / NoInternet: Yes / NoarToThe Superintendent.(Order of the Court was made byV.Dhanapalan,J.,) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law1.M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Crime No.57 of 2012Section 379 IPC2.B-2, Esplanade Police Station,Crime No.225 of 2012Section 379 r/w 34 IPC3.B-2, Esplanade Police Station,Crime No.1055 of 2012Section 379 IPCThe ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 13.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, B-2, Esplanade Police Station in Crime No.2148 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC.Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority, taking into account the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail and the likelihood of the same is prejudicial to the public order and health, has passed the impugned detention order, wherein it has been mentioned as under in paragraph No.4 of the order: 4.... In a similar case registered at B-2, Esplanade Police Station Cr.No.981/2013 u/s.341, 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the High Court, Chennai to the accused Velu @ Chinnavelu, in Crl.The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.John @ Johnson are taking action to take him on bail by filing another bail application before the Court.A close reading of the entire booklet, it is noticed that the detaining authority has taken a decision on 19.09.2013 to detain the detenu on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out by filing another application in respect of Crime No. 2148 of 2013, ground case, without any valid material in support thereof and passed the impugned order of detention in mechanical manner, which shows clear non application of mind on the part of detaining authority in arriving at such conclusion.Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, John @ Johnson, S/o.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras V.Dhanapalan, J.and G.Chockalingam, J.arHabeas Corpus Petition No.2521 of 201321.04.2014
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
100,729,243
It Crl.1 This is an application filed under Sections 4 & 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) seeking probation in terms of the conviction which has been upheld against the applicant by a Bench of this Court.2 The averments contained in the application have been perused.Appeal No.828/2009 Page 1 of 8 is stated that the applicant is enrolled as a chartered accountant with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.He had been convicted by the Sessions Judge under Section 376 (2)(g) as also under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).M.A. No.1117/2014 in Crl.Appeal No.828/2009 Page 1 of 8Appeal No.828/2009 Page 2 of 8Appeal No.828/2009 Page 3 of 8Custodial sentence of two years each, with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and a default stipulation of three months rigorous imprisonment in case of Crl.M.A. No.1117/2014 in Crl.Appeal No.828/2009 Page 7 of 8 failure to pay the fine would meet the ends of justice.The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above."M.A. No.1117/2014 in Crl.Appeal No.828/2009 Page 7 of 8INDERMEET KAUR, J NOVEMBER 12, 2014 A Crl.Appeal No.828/2009 Page 8 of 8Appeal No.828/2009 Page 8 of 8
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
100,730,476
These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.(ii) That, the applicants should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
100,736,874
He is aged around 60 years.It is further submitted that there is no possibility of commencement of trial in near future, due to COVID-19 situation.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.I.A. No.11232/2020, an application for urgent hearing, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.This is the third bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 09.09.2019 by Police Station Mihona Distt.Earlier the applicant was granted interim bail by this Court on 2/6/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.11276/2020 for a period of 60 days due to COVID 19 situation.Thereafter, he surrendered before the trial Court.Now, the applicant is in custody.Hence, prayed for grant of interim 02 bail for further 60 days looking to the present COVID-19 situation.He further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer andhas submitted that offence is registered under Sections 304- B, 498-A,201, 34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,which is heinous in nature.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant/s :-The applicant/s will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him/her;The applicant/s will inform the SHO of concerned Police Station about his/her/their residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the State Counsel to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned Police Station for information.Application stands allowed and disposed of.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
100,742,464
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Soni with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No-377 of 2019, under Sections-302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial.From perusal of the bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation.State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.In case ofher absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
100,743,808
Rejected md.CRM No. 1871 of 2016 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affirmed on 3.3.2016 in connection with Joypur P.S. Case No. 185 dated October 24, 2015 under Section 342/326/326A/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (G.R. No.2385 of 2015).And In the matter of:- Alamchand Molla and others ... Petitioners Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty ... for the petitioners Mr. Goutam Wilson ... for the State The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Joypur P.S. Case No. 185 dated October 24, 2015 under Section 342/326/326A/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, corresponding to G.R. No.2385 of 2015, have filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Counsel for the State produces the Case Diary and submits that the injury report at page-16 be looked into.The hospital papers at pages 32 to 75 be also looked into.Medical treatment sheets at pages 55 and 56 be also looked into.Plastic surgery was recommended.Statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC.So also the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC.at pages 4, 9, 10,11, 12, 13 and 14 be also looked into.By order dated 16-12-2015, out of 14 persons, bail application of five to six persons was rejected.Having regard to the submissions of the parties and on scrutiny of the Case Diary, sufficient material exists to reject this application for anticipatory bail.Accordingly, the application is rejected and dismissed.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.(Patherya, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.)
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
100,745,587
th (Passed on this 26 day of October, 2015) This Criminal Revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the present applicant against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.490/2015 dated 20.07.2015 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the present applicant under section 302 of IPC in alternative 302/34, 120-B of IPC and under section 25 (1-B)(A)/27 of Arms Act.According to the prosecution story, present applicant is father-in-law of the deceased Riyaz.It is alleged that present applicant and the deceased Riyaz had some dispute going on in 2 respect of demand of dowry by the deceased.According to the prosecution, on 16.03.2015 at about 8:00 pm, the deceased Riyaz was informed by the present applicant to come to Reti Mandi where co-accused Janu was waiting with some things.Subsequently, co-accused Janu and Ayub, who were sitting on the motorcycle, which was being driven by co-accused Janu, fired gunshot on the deceased, due to which he died.Present applicant filed an application under section 227 of Cr.P.C. for his discharge on the ground that even if it is assumed that all the documents filed alongwith the charge-sheet are true, no case is made out against the present applicant.Learned trial Judge by the impugned order, dismissed the application under section 227 of Cr.P.C. and proceeded to frame charges as aforesaid against the present applicant.Call details of the mobile number have been given on 01.03.2015 to 15.03.2015 but no telephone number has been filed for 16.03.2015 when the incident took place.Call details of mobile No.99774-54569, which belongs to Naushad, brother of the deceased, call details are available 3 from 01.03.2015 to 17.03.2015 and two calls were made on 16.03.2015 at 8:57 am and 23:57 am.However, two calls were made from this phone to mobile phone of 80852-13013 which was made at 19:38 and 20:43 hours and which falsify story of the prosecution when the incident took place on 8:00 pm.Similarly, the mobile phone numbers of Janu, Ayub etc do not show that present applicant called the deceased to a particular spot where he was murdered and based on these averments, it is prayed that no offence is made out against him.Hence, order of the lower court be set aside and he be discharged from the charges.I have gone through the impugned judgment.Learned Additional Sessions Judge observed in the impugned order that the conspiracy took place 2 or 3 days prior to the incident, therefore, merely because no call details are filed for 16.03.2015, when the incident took place, no inference can be drawn in favour of the present applicant.In the considered opinion of this Court, there are ample evidence available to show that present applicant had dispute going on with deceased.He was closely related to him.At the charge stage, strong suspicion has to be seen and where 4 accused stands fair, chances of conviction need not to be seen.In this view of the matter, in the present case, at the stage of framing of charges, only prima facie, it is to be seen that there exist strong suspicion that present applicant was also part of the conspiracy.This apart, the documents relating to call details may be called under section 311 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Judge during trial, when such documents already exist, there is no bar in calling them in evidence by the trial Judge.Accordingly, in my considered opinion, at this stage, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
100,746,248
When goods are transported from one destination to another, the goods are insured for the period during which they are being transported and till they are delivered at the destination.The consignor is usually the person selling the goods and the consignee is the purchaser of the goods.The premium could be paid for, depending on the terms of purchase, by either the consignor or the consignee.The marine open policy covers internal transport of goods by road as well.A cover note is issued by a clerk in the insurance company who is authorised to do so.At that stage the insurer usually submits the proposal and requisite documents.After collection of the premium amount, the policy cover note is issued.When goods are either stolen during transit or damaged or failed to be delivered, a claim is lodged with the branch which CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 4 of 40 issued the policy.The insured gives intimation to the NIC and the Branch Manager appoints a Surveyor, from the approved list for that branch, to assess the loss.The Surveyor then submits a report along with photographs, the proposal certificate and the goods received.A clerk in the concerned NIC Branch then processes the claim and submits it to the Branch Manager for approval.After approval by the Branch Manger, the file goes to the Account Clerk for preparation of the cheque.After the cheque is prepared, it is signed by two authorised signatories one of whom is the Branch Manager.The cheque is then handed over to the insured/claimant.Usually the Surveyors fee is also paid at the same time as the claim is settled.During the relevant period, Pushpender Kumar (PW-4) was working as an Assistant in the Kapashera Branch in the underwriting department.He CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 5 of 40 was maintaining the premium register of four departments i.e. fire, marine, motor and miscellaneous.He disclosed in his evidence that between 1995 and 1998, L.K. Gupta was the only person in the Officer Grade in the Kapashera Branch.In other words, there was no Senior Assistant, Double Assistant Administrative Officer during this period.The Kapashera Branch was under the Divisional Office (DO) Gurgaon.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 5 of 40On a perusal of some of the files it appeared that certain claims were fictitious.The files of 5 to 6 such claims were seized.Mr. A.L. Gambhir (PW8), who was the Assistant Administrative Officer of NIC working in the Vigilance Department, was involved in the inquiry.In his evidence, he stated that after seizing the files, he submitted them to one Mr. A.K. Seth, in-charge of the Vigilance Department of NIC, Delhi Region.He stated that "the documents like Power of Attorney, Indemnity Bond, carrier receipts etc. were missing in those files which I had seized." However, he could not remember the details in the files which he had seized.Importantly, he stated that although he had prepared a seizure memo when he had seized the files, the said seizure memo was not on the record of the learned trial Court.Secondly, although he had submitted an inquiry report to Mr. A.K. Seth, the said report was also not on the trial Court record.A search was conducted on 22nd August 2001 in the residential premises of L.K. Gupta and Sanjay Raina.The claim files (Ex.P1 to P7) pertaining to the fictitious claims were seized from NIC under seizure memo (Ex.PW2/A).CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 6 of 40The chargesheet listed out seven claims which appeared to have been settled by the Kapashera branch, NIC in an illegal manner.The claims listed in the chargesheet were as under:(i) Claim No. 21/96-97-05 and the corresponding policy which was taken on 22nd April 1996 by Sanjay Raina (A2) in the name of M/s. Sonia & Co., 18, Radhey Shyam Park, Delhi-92 by paying a premium of Rs. 2,220 for transportation of central chemicals from anywhere in India to Delhi.ZKC also submitted a bill of Rs. 1,664 towards survey fee.The survey report and the fee bill were accepted by L.K.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 7 of 40Gupta (A1) Branch Manager.The cheques dated 19th August 1996 for Rs. 27,300 and Rs. 1,664 respectively were issued by NIC.Both the cheques were encashed by A2 in his accounts at HDFC Bank and the Bank of India respectively.Later, it was found that the address given for Paras in Bombay was non- existent.There was no goods receipt, no letter of subrogation, no details of the correspondence between the insured and the transporter.The details of appointing ZKC as a surveyor were also not available on the file.Although the full claim was paid, no recovery agent was appointed.In the chargesheet it was stated that in claim filed, the insurance agent code was mentioned as 320/3, which pertained to one Rakesh Jain but had been registered in the name of his wife, Poonam Jain (PW-12).When he was questioned, he denied having introduced M/s. Sonia & Co. for obtaining the insurance policy.The claim contained the letter of subrogation and photocopy of the goods received.M.I. Thomas (PW1) deposed in Court that no such firm like M/s. L.A. Marketing Agency was a tenant at the address given for the said firm.PW12, Ms. Poonam Jain, also stated that her husband, Rakesh Jain, an insurance agent, had never dealt with a company by the name of Silk Screen.The cheque was credited to the account of M/s. Silk Screen.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 10 of 40(iv) The fourth claim was 97-98/01 and the corresponding policy taken by Sanjay Raina on 21st April 1997 in the name of M/s. Sarthak Enterprises, the address of which was no different from that of M/s. Silk Screen.This was for transporting cardboard papers from Bombay to Delhi.Both the amounts were passed together by L.K. Gupta for the payment of Rs. 46,300 and a cheque for that amount dated 13th June 1997 and another cheque of the same date for Rs. 2,594 were issued and encashed by Sanjay Raina.The account of M/s. Sarthak Enterprises was introduced by A4, a proprietor of Silk Screen.The Consignor was M/s. Topaz Card Manufacturing Co. and the carrier was shown as Bullet Road Carriers.The address was that of one Prem Gambhir (PW-6) who denied having issued any goods receipt.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 12 of 40The consignor was L.A. Marketing Agency, a fictitious firm.The transporter was shown as M/s. Narang Road Carriers, also a fictitious firm.The entire claim was lodged and a cheque for Rs. 28,180 was issued which was encashed by Sanjay Raina.The missing documents included the goods receipt, the letter of subrogation, the details of appointment of surveyor, the details of the recovery agent appointed, copy of the marine policy and the entry regarding the claim.And I hereby direct that you all be tried by this court on the said charge."It is seen that there are three main charges - the first concerns the offence of criminal conspiracy with which all the accused have been charged.It clubs all the seven transactions discussed hereinbefore and charges the accused for the offence under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.The second charge pertains exclusively to A1, L.K. Gupta.He is charged with having abused his official position as a public servant during 1995-98 and passed fraudulently the bogus marine claims in respect of the seven transactions in order to obtain illegal gratification and allow NIC to be cheated by other accused persons, thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) and Section 15 of the PC Act.The third does not pertain to A1, L.K. Gupta, at all.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 15 of 40PW4 stated that the cheque for Rs. 27,300 in favour of M/s. Sonia & Co. was signed by him at point A and by L.K. Gupta at point B. He highlighted that he had signed the cheque after LK Gupta had.The file of this claim was Ex.P1 and when it was shown to Geeta Sharma (PW5), she stated that it did not contain the goods receipt and the letter of subrogation.However, it contained the surveyors report.The details of appointment of surveyor were not available.For this claim, the insurance agent, who introduced the insured, was Poonam Jain, the wife of Rakesh Jain (PW13), who was working as an insurance agent in her name.She stated that her husband never dealt with M/s. Sonia & Co.. PW-13 deposed likewise.H.K. Sharma (DW-4) proved that ZKC was not in the list of approved surveyors.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 40 of 40These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 3 rd March 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in CC No. 31/07 convicting:(i) All the Appellants under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act);(ii) Appellant L.K. Gupta for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act;(iii) Appellants Sanjay Raina, Rajeev Kumar Goyal and Deepak Handa (A-2 to A-4) for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 2 of 40The appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 5 th March 2008 whereby:(i) Appellant L.K. Gupta was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for one year and RI for one year and a fine of Rs.20,000 and in default to undergo SI for three months for the offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC with both the sentences being directed to run concurrently.(ii) Appellant Sanjay Raina was sentenced to RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000 and in default to undergo SI for six months for the offence under Section 420 IPC and an identical sentence for the offences under Sections 467 read with Section 471 IPC and 468 read with Section 471 and RI for one year for the offence under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC with all sentences being directed to run concurrently.(iii) Appellant Rajeev Kumar Goyal was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and a fine of Rs.25,000 and in default to undergo SI for three months for each of the offences under Section 420 IPC, Section 467 read with Section 471 IPC and Section 468 read with Section 471 IPC and RI for one year under Section 120 B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC with all the sentences being directed to run concurrently.(iv) Appellant Deepak Handa was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000 and in default to undergo SI for CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 3 of 40 three months for each of the offences under Section 420 IPC, Section 467 read with Section 471 IPC and Section 468 read with Section 471 IPC and RI for one year under Section 120 B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC with all the sentences directed to run concurrently.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 3 of 40At the time of admission of appeals on 31 st March 2008, this Court suspended the sentences awarded to each of the Appellants during the pendency of the appeals subject to terms.The Court s informed that the fine amounts have already been paid by the Appellants.Procedure for processing marine claimsBefore discussing the particular facts of these cases it is necessary to understand how the marine open policy comes to be issued.If the right of recovery has been protected by issuance of notice to the carrier, the Branch Manager can, in his discretion, after settling the claim, appoint a recovery agent.Carriers typically pay 5 to 10% of the claim amount.In case the goods are not damaged but some part of it goes missing before reaching the destination, the insurance company appoints a tracer for tracing the goods.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 4 of 40Case of the prosecutionNIC issues various general insurance policies, fire policies, marine policies, medical policies and other miscellaneous policies.The address given in the account opening form of M/s. Sonia & Co. was 106B, DDA Commercial Complex, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, which was also the address of ZKC.A2, Sanjay Raina, was both the insured as well as the surveyor in the case.The account CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 8 of 40 opening form of ZKC mentioned the name of the proprietor as Vinod Kaul.The handwriting expert had established that Vinod Kaul and Sanjay Raina were one and the same person.The chargesheet alleged that the entire claim of M/s. Sonia & Co. was processed by L.K. Gupta himself without involving the other subordinate staff "in violation of established procedures."CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 8 of 40(ii) The second transaction, as per the chargesheet, involved claim No. 44/95-96/04 and the corresponding policy taken by Raj Kumar Goel (A3) in the name of Rajeev Kumar & Co. on 7th November 1994 for transporting chemicals again from Paras in Mumbai to Rajeev Kumar & Co. in New Delhi.The address of Rajeev Kumar & Co. was the same as that of M/s Sonia & Co. In the file, there was no survey report.No details of appointment of any recovery agent were available in the file.However, a bill for the fee of the recovery agent in the name of Vinod Kaul was found in the file.The address of Vinod Kaul is the residential address of Sanjay Raina (A2).The name of the transporter was shown as Narang Road Carriers with the address being that of Gali No.3, Aruna Park, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 and no such carrier existed at that address.Sanjay Raina made the payment towards recovery by a cheque dated 26th March 1996, when, in fact, it had to be made by Narang Road Carrier.Paras was a fictitious firm.Again, it was alleged that L.K. Gupta had himself passed the claim without involving any subordinate staff.The signature of A3 in the account opening form of Rajeev Kumar & Co. was confirmed by the handwriting expert.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 9 of 40(iii) The third claim was claim No. 21/95-96/07 and the corresponding policy taken by Deepak Handa (A4) in the name of M/s. Silk Screen with the address 61F, Ber Sarai, New Delhi on 13th December 1995 for transporting chemicals bought from M/s. L.A. Marketing Agency, Mumbai.The surveyor was same ZKC, which was the same Surveyor used for that of M/s. Sonia & Co. A4 was the brother-in-law of A2, Sanjay Raina.Vinod Kaul was shown as a recovery agent but he was not in the list of approved recovery agents.ZKC was not a surveyor empanelled for the Kapashera Branch, NIC.The surveyor was again ZKC appointed by L.K. Gupta.ZKC submitted a report dated 20 th May 1997 assessing the loss as Rs. 46,300 and a bill for Rs. 2,594 towards the survey fee.The agent code pertained to Shalini Gupta (PW-26) who denied having introduced M/s. Sarthak Enterprises.Shalini Gupta was the wife of Dr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, the brother-in-law of L.K. Gupta.Although the full amount claimed was paid, no recovery agent was appointed.L.K. Gupta processed the claim without informing the subordinate staff.(v) The fifth claim was claim No. 97-98/10 and the corresponding policy which was taken by Sanjay Raina in the name of SKW & Co.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 11 of 40The address of SKW & Co. was the same as the fictitious firm, i.e., Narang Road Carriers and Goel Road Carrier.The policy was for covering transport of ball bearing from Bombay to Delhi.The name of the consignor is not available on the file.The transporter was shown as M/s. Bullet Road Carriers.ZKC was again appointed as the surveyor and submitted a bill for Rs. 1,500 towards the survey fee.L.K. Gupta passed the claim for Rs. 49,304, which included the survey fee and one consolidated cheque was issued for the said amount on 14 th July 1998, which was encashed by Sanjay Raina.The recovery agent was shown to be Rakesh Modgil and the amount to be deposited of Rs. 3,451 was arranged by A2 himself in the name of M/s. Webers India, which was a fictitious firm.Rakesh Modgil was not paid the recovery agents fee.He was not given anything to show that he has been appointed as a recovery agent or that he recovered any amount from the transporter.The agent code 310/20 belonged to Ashish Kumar Jain who was registered as an insurance agent in the name of Riti Arora.He denied having introduced SKW & Co. The address of SKW & Co. was also the same as that of ZKC.Here again, the claim was stated to have been processed and passed by L.K. Gupta without involving the subordinate staff.The consignor CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 12 of 40 was shown as L.A. Marketing Agency, a fictitious firm.The transporter was shown as M/s. Nishant Transporter, which was again a non-existent firm.The claim was recommended by Jagdish Kumar Meena (PW9).The charges framedBy an order dated 11th August 2003, the Special Judge framed the charges against the accused.Since there have been considerable arguments on the question of charge, it is important to set out the charges themselves in extenso.They read as under: "I, Prem Kumar, Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi, do hereby charge you accused L K Gupta, Branch Manager, NIC, Kapashera, New Delhi, 2) Sanjay Raina r/o 269-C, Dilshad CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 13 of 40 Garden, Delhi, 3) Deepak Handa r/o B-1/33-2, Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi-29 and 4) Rajeev Kumar Goel r/o no.18, Radhey Shyam Park, New Delhi, as under:CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 13 of 40That during 1995-1998, LK Gupta Branch Manager, NIC, Kapashera, New Delhi entered into and executed criminal conspiracy with Sanjay Raina, Deepak Handa and Rajeev Kumar Goel and abused his official position as public servant and passed six fictitious marine claims in favour of those bogus claimants private firms/companies on the basis of forged, false claim documents, purported to be genuine by accused mentioned above which were received by accused persons fraudulently and cheated the NIC Ltd. in the garb of the following firm companies:1. M/s. Sonia & Co. Claim No. 21/11-0004/124/96M/s. Silk Screen Claim No. 21/95-96/07M/s. Sarthak Enterprises Claim No. 97-98/01M/s. SKW & Co. Claim No. 97-98/105. M/s. Abha International Claim No.96-97/08M/s. Abha International Claim No.98-99/12 and thus committed offences punishable u/s 120 B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and within my cognizance.Secondly, that you LK Gupta Branch Manager, NIC, Kapashera Branch, New Delhi, abused your official position as a public servant during 1995-98 and passed fraudulently all bogus marine claims in favour of the above mentioned 6 fictitious firms/companies in order to obtain illegal gratification and allowed NIC to be cheated by other accused persons and committed offence of criminal misconduct punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) and 15 of P.C. Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.Thirdly, that you Sanjay Raina, Deepak Handa and Rajeev Kumar Goel submitted respective false marine claims after forging documents with intention to cheat NIC and received payments through cheques for your respective fictitious firms in CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 14 of 40 order to cheat NIC and thereby cheated NIC to the tune of Rs. 2.6 lacs as per details given in the charge sheet and thereby committed offences u/s 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and within my cognizance.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 14 of 40The next contention advanced by the Appellants concern the seizure and preservation of files by the Vigilance Department of NIC and their subsequent entrustment to the CBI.It is stated that with there being a clear admission by PW8 that the seizure memo and the inquiry report prepared by the Vigilance Department not being in the judicial file at the time of trial, the burden was on the NIC to show what had happened to the documents found missing in the files seized.According to learned counsel for the Appellants, unless the seizure CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 22 of 40 memo prepared by the Vigilance Department of NIC was made available, it would not be possible to know what papers existed when such seizure took place and if the files were not preserved in a tamper proof environment, then the Appellants would have the benefit of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and would be able to contend that an adverse inference ought to be drawn that the documents were kept back by the Prosecution would have, in fact, enured to the benefit of the accused.He was part of the Vigilance Department which conducted the surprise check.He states that "I have prepared the seizure memo.I seized the files from National Insurance Company Limited, Kapashera Branch.I had seized the files from the Branch Manager but the seizure memos are not on record." He further states "these files which were seized by me remained in the custody of the Vigilance Department.There is no procedure in the Vigilance Department to prepare the handing over memo." He clarifies that the files "remained in the custody of the Vigilance Department." He adds that he had prepared the inquiry report which he submitted to Mr. A.K. Seth but that "my report is not on the judicial file." He states that I had not given the details of the missing documents in the seized files to the officials of NIC, Kapashera."In his examination-in-chief, PW-8 clarified that he found certain claims to be fictitious "because certain papers were not available in CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 23 of 40 the file." He later clarifies in the same examination-in-chief that "the documents like Power of Attorney, Indemnity Bond, carrier receipts etc. were missing in those files which I had seized." At this stage, it must also be noted that it is stated in the evidence of PW9 that he processed the claim in Ex.P6 of M/s. Abha International and that all the papers in the said filed were recommended by him to be in order.PW9 himself being involved in the process of claim in Ex.P6 was, however, not proceeded against by the CBI.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 23 of 40However, there is another aspect of the matter which involves claims being made on behalf of fictitious firms with fictitious consignors and road carriers.There, it does not matter much that some of the papers may have gone missing as long as there is enough evidence on record to show that the claims were made on behalf of fictitious firms with the transporter and consignor also being fictitious.Consequently, while it is true that there is nothing to indicate that CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 24 of 40 the files seized by the Vigilance Department remained with it in a tamper proof environment till they were handed over to CBI, no adverse inference is possible to be drawn against CBI qua all the accused, but at best, against L.K. Gupta, who is the person who is supposed to have checked all the papers in the file before approving the claims for payment.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 24 of 40The Court now proposes to consider the case concerning each of the claims in seriatim also proposed to adopt the same approach.The role of each of the accused will also be discussed.Claim of M/s. Sonia & Co.The facts of this claim have already been noticed earlier.Likewise, DWs 6 and 7 stated that they had not heard of ZKC.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 25 of 4033. DW-4 in his cross-examination produced the panel of surveyors for the Gurgaon Division for marine claims.He received this information by a letter dated 13th September 2007 from the Dy.GM of the Delhi Region office.It is not known how this witness was able to obtain a document, without permission of the learned trial Court, in between two hearings and even marked it as an exhibit." The enclosed panel itself simply gives the names under the title Marine, without specifying the year of empanelment.At best, it tells the reader what the empanelled surveyors for the year 1992 were.There is nothing to CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 26 of 40 indicate that for the relevant years 1995-98, ZKC was not an approved surveyor.There is evidence to show that ZKC was perhaps a licensed surveyor.This part of the evidence is significant as far as the role of LK Gupta is concerned, as it is not possible to show that he deliberately named ZKC as a surveyor knowing that it was not empanelled.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 26 of 40However, as regards accused No.2, Sanjay Raina, the situation is different.The evidence is clear that Sanjay Raina was the proprietor of M/s. Sonia & Co. and held himself out as Vinod Kaul, the proprietor of ZKC.In other words, the insured and the surveyor was the same person.The evidence of PW31, the postman from Mumbai, proved that there was no company at the given address for Paras.So, Paras was a fictitious firm.No address of the transporter, Rahul Road Lines, was available in the file.Sanjay Raina himself encashed the cheques in question.On behalf of Sanjay Raina it was submitted that, in the absence of examination of the Directors of ZKC, or the documents qua their identities or signatures, the mere report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) showing the similarity between the signatures of Vinod Kaul and Sanjay Raina, did not hold significance.Secondly, it was submitted that, in the absence of a money trail, it could not be said that there was any conspiracy amongst the accused persons.The evidence of the handwriting expert, Ramesh Chandra (PW-30) is significant in this regard.The detailed reasons for his opinion CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 27 of 40 (Ex.PW30/P) adequately proves that the writing of the so-called Vinod Kaul are identical to that of Sanjay Raina.The opinion is a detailed one.The cross-examination of this witness by the counsel for Sanjay Raina has not yielded much.The said evidence clearly corroborates the documentary evidence available on file which shows that it was Sanjay Raina who was the proprietor of M/s. Sonia & Co. and it is he who submitted the claims and encashed the payment.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 27 of 40On the aspect of the conspiracy between the accused persons qua this claim, the Prosecution seeks to show a conspiracy between L.K. Gupta and Sanjay Raina.There is no substantive evidence to show that there was an agreement between the two of them for performing an illegal act.As explained in John Pandian v. State (2010) 14 SCC 129, "there must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of the offence and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of crime between the two or more persons to commit an offence." It was held that "a few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy.....The circumstance relied for the purpose of drawing an inference should be prior in point of time then the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy."The evidence on record in the present case does not appear to be CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 28 of 40 sufficient to conclude that there was a criminal conspiracy between L.K. Gupta and Sanjay Raina as a result of which the payment was made of the entire claim amount to Sanjay Raina.However, what is certain is that Sanjay Raina submitted documents knowing fully well that they were fabricated and on the basis of fresh documents wrongfully obtained for himself the claim amount from NIC.Therefore, as far as A2 is concerned, qua this claim, the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 28 of 40As regards the role of LK Gupta, the Court is not satisfied from the evidence placed on record that he knowingly abused his office as a public servant to facilitate the settlement of the claim and making payment to Sanjay Raina.It is not shown that there was any pecuniary advantage to L.K. Gupta himself.While it is true that he was the branch manager and himself processed the claim, the evidence of PW4 itself shows that he was the only person at that point in time entrusted with the responsibility, with the other positions remaining vacant.He was possibly overworked and it is possible that he may not CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 29 of 40 have been in a position to realise that Vinod Kumar and Sanjay Raina were the same persons (the fact which has been established only during the investigation and with the help of forensic evidence) or that Paras was a fictitious firm.In the circumstances, the Court is prepared to give the benefit of doubt to L.K. Gupta in respect of this and other claims which would be discussed hereafter.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 29 of 40Claim of M/s. Silk ScreenThe facts of this case have also been discussed earlier.PW1 has demonstrated that the Consignor, M/s. L.A. Marketing Agency did not exist at the address at 164, Modi Street, Mumbai.Although learned counsel for the Appellants argued that during her deposition, PW-3 did not specifically refer to living at Gali No.3, Aruna Park, Delhi but only gave her address as A-143, Gali No.3, Aruna Park, Shakarpur, Delhi, the Court is of the view that nothing much turns on this aspect.There is nothing to show that the address A-143, Aruna Park, Shakarpur, Delhi is different from A-143, Gali No.3, Aruna Park, Shakarpur, Delhi.There is no cross-examination of this witness on that aspect.She clearly states that she does not know Sanjay Raina.The same address has been used for M/s. Abha International, M/s. Goyal Road Lines and M/s. SKW & Co. She did not know these firms.During her cross-examination, she denied that for some time, some portion of her premises was rented to M/s. Goyal CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 30 of 40 Road Lines and Sanjay Raina.Nothing has been elicited from her in her cross-examination by learned counsel for Sanjay Raina.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 30 of 40PW4 admits to having signed the claimed cheque along with L.K. Gupta.It has been proved that the consignor is ZKC, which is none other than Sanjay Raina who projected himself as Vinod Kaul.PWs 12 and 13 proved that neither of them introduced Silk Screen.The role of Sanjay Raina, as far as this claim is concerned, has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.However, as far as Deepak Handa is concerned, the Prosecution has been able to show that he is, no doubt, the brother-in-law of Sanjay Raina and he did accept the cheque issued in his name by NIC and deposited it in his account.However, as far as the claim opening form and other related document is concerned, the signatures thereon are not shown to match his signatures.There is merit in the contention of Mr. Handoo, learned counsel for Deepak Handa that the Prosecution has not been able to prove his role in the making of the claim itself.On the documents submitted to the NIC, the writings of Deepak Handa are not shown to exist.What the Prosecution has, however, been able to prove is that he accepted the cheque of Rs. 20,080 drawn in favour of M/s. Silk Screen and deposited it in his account.This one act does make him a party to CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 31 of 40 the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC since he knew that he was not owing any money whatsoever by NIC.If, indeed, as he submits, he submitted no claim to NIC, there is no reason for him to accept such cheque and then proceed to deposit it in his account.His close relation to Sanjay Raina does make them both party to a conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC as well.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 31 of 40As regards L.K. Gupta, for the reasons already discussed in relation to Claim No.1, the Court is not satisfied that there was any meeting of minds of L.K. Gupta, Sanjay Raina and Deepak Handa, or that L.K. Gupta knowingly facilitated the commission of crime by Sanjay Raina and Deepak Handa.There is no evidence to show that either of them corresponded with L.K.Gupta at any point in time.The evidence is insufficient to return a finding of guilt against L.K. Gupta either for the offence under Section 120-B qua this claim or Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act.The resultant position is that the offences committed by Sanjay Raina qua this claim under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 420/467/468/471 have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.As far as A4, Deepak Handa is concerned, the offences under Section 120-B IPC and Section 420 have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.The offence qua this claim vis-a-vis L.K. Gupta has not been proved.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 32 of 40Claim of M/s. Sarthak EnterprisesPW-6 was the owner of Bullet Road Carriers.He neither transported the goods nor received any letter on the letter head of Sarthak Enterprises.He denied his signature on the letter showing the name of the Consignor as M/s. Topaz Card Manufacturing Co. PW-11 was the owner of M/s. Topaz Card Manufacturing Co. in Mumbai.The letter pad Ex.PW11/A did not pertain to his shop.He clearly stated that it was a forged bill and that the telephone number and the Sales Tax number were also incorrect.He had never dealt with a firm by that name.The proprietor of this firm is Sanjay Raina.It is clear that he accepted the cheque amount and deposited it in his account.The mere fact that the account opening form of this firm was introduced by Deepak Handa is not sufficient to make him part of the conspiracy.The consignor is ZKC and this is one other case where the insured is also the consignor.For the reasons already discussed, in this case again, there is no evidence to show any conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC between L.K. Gupta, Sanjay Raina and Deepak Handa.However, the evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of Sanjay Raina for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC.The evidence is insufficient to return a finding of guilt against L.K. Gupta for any of the offences he has been CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 33 of 40 charged with qua this claim.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 33 of 40Claim of M/s. Rajeev Kumar & Co.The consignor of this claim was Paras, a fictitious firm.ZKC was the consignor which shows the involvement of Sanjay Raina.The recovery agent was none other than Vinod Kaul @ Sanjay Raina.The recovery payment was also made by Sanjay Raina.A fee for effecting the recovery was paid by Sanjay Raina.The evidence of DW-8 shows that a person cannot be appointed as a recovery agent in his own claim.47. PW-30 has proved that Rajeev Kumar Goyal and Raj Kumar Goyal are not different persons.A-3 opened an account No.2510 in the name of Raj Kumar Goyal.Their roles in the offences under Section 120-B read with the substantive offences under Sections 467/468/471 IPC have been proved by the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.However, the CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 34 of 40 evidence against LK Gupta is insufficient to find him guilty for the offences he has been charged with qua this claim.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 34 of 40Claim of M/s. SKW & Co.As far as this claim is concerned, PW-3 has proved that there was no such firm as SKW & Co. at A-143, Aruna Park, Shakarpur, Delhi.Sanjay Raina was the proprietor of this firm as well.Therefore, the firm itself was fictitious.Here again, the name of the transporter was shown as Bullet Road Carriers.PW-7 has proved that he never introduced Riti Arora as an agent.PW-10 has proved that Riti Arora was married in 1995 and has since then been living in Banaras.The fact that Sanjay Raina lodged a claim has been proved by PW-30, the handwriting expert.It is submitted that the fact that a consolidated cheque of Rs. 49,340, which included Rs. 1,500 for the surveyor fee was paid to Sanjay Raina, showed the involvement of L.K. Gupta.The evidence of PW-4 shows that the cheque was prepared by a clerk.It is not known whether L.K. Gupta gave any specific instructions qua this claim to the person preparing the cheque.That singular fact is not sufficient to rope him into the controversy.It appears that Rakesh Mudgil was a fictitious person and the recovery fee was arranged by Sanjay Raina in the name of Weber India, which was a fictitious firm.The evidence on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt of A2 for the offences with which he has been charged other than Section 120-B CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 35 of 40 IPC qua this claim.Claim of M/s. Abha InternationalThis claim pertains to file Ex.As far as L.K. Gupta is concerned, it is clear that this particular claim was also processed by PW-9 but, for some reason, CBI did not implicate him.He had encashed the cheque in question.The evidence of PWs1, 3, 26 and DWs 4, 6 and 7 sufficiently prove the guilt of A2 as far as this claim is concerned for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC.CRL.A. Nos. 265-66,269-70 of 2008 Page 37 of 40(iii) As far as A-3, Rajeev Kumar Goyal is concerned, the evidence is sufficient to prove the offences under Sections 420/464/468/471 and Section 120-B IPC read with the aforementioned offences qua the claim of M/s. Rajeev & Co. and M/s. Abha International (Claim No.6).
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
100,746,934
He returned the next day at about 9:00 AM and repeated the act of rape with the victim and again went away in the same fashion.No one came to the victim on the third or fourth day; but on the fourth day, i.e. 04.08.2011, respondent came at about 4 PM and took the victim out of the room on the pretext of providing her food.He took her on his motorcycle and abandoned her in a street behind MIG Flats, East of Loni.From there, the prosecutrix managed to reach her home in the night but did not reveal anything to her mother.M.A. 15529/2016 (Condonation of Delay)This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the present leave to appeal.For the reasons stated in the application and since we have considered the leave to appeal on merits, the delay in filing the leave to appeal is condoned.Application stands disposed of.The present leave to appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.06.2016 passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case 44618/2015 by virtue of which the respondent has been acquitted for charges under Sections 363/366/343/34 and Sections 376/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (briefly the IPC).L.P. 541/2016 Page 1 of 12The case was registered on the basis of the complaint of the prosecutrix (PW-1) wherein the prosecutrix had stated that on 01.08.2011 at about 3:30 PM, when she was going for her tuitions, upon reaching Arun Book Depot, Nitin/respondent and Aman [declared juvenile (JCL)] came on a motorcycle and enticed her and took her to Loni.En route, the prosecutrix asked where she was being taken, but she was scolded and given life threats.The prosecutrix was taken to a room in the house at Loni, which was closed from inside by the respondent, while Aman (JCL) stood guard outside.The respondent committed rape on the prosecutrix and went away after locking the room from outside.On the next morning, the prosecutrix disclosed everything to her mother who, in turn, disclosed the facts to her father in the night and then they came to the Police Station and lodged the report.During the course of trial, the co-accused Aman (JCL) was found to be a juvenile and his matter referred to the Juvenile Justice Board.After considering the records of the case and hearing the counsel for the parties, charge was framed against the respondent under Sections 363/366/343/34 and Sections 376/506/34 IPC.The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.L.P. 541/2016 Page 2 of 12The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all; the statement of the respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the respondent did not lead any evidence in his defence.After examining the evidence before it, the Trial Court acquitted the respondent.The Trial Court found that (1) the testimonies of all the prime prosecution witnesses, being the prosecutrix (PW-1), Smt.Mukesh Rani (PW-2) and Sh.Hari Kishan Sharma (PW-5) were contradictory and inconsistent; (2) the conduct of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her parents (PW-2 and PW-5) was questionable; (3) there is unexplained delay in the lodging of FIR; (4) the medical evidence has not supported the case of the prosecution; and (5) the minority of the prosecutrix was not established.The Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that Sh.Hari Kishan Sharma (PW-5) had deposed in Court that he had gone to the police station to lodge a missing report, but the police officials advised him to search for the victim himself.9. Learned counsel for the State next submitted that the Trial Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that there are material contradictions in the statements of the victim/prosecutrix (PW-1).It is Crl.L.P. 541/2016 Page 3 of 12 submitted that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be made the sole basis of conviction in a rape case and there is neither a rule of law nor of practice mandating corroboration.There were no material omissions, improvements or contradictions which go to the root of the case and thus, the testimony of the prosecutrix could not have been discarded.L.P. 541/2016 Page 3 of 12The final submission of Ms.We have heard learned counsel for the State and have carefully examined the judgment of the Trial Court.The following questions arise for our consideration:(iii) Whether the failure of the parents of the prosecutrix (PW-2 and PW-5) to lodge a missing report raises a question upon their conduct?PW1/A, the victim alleged that she was enticed (behlana-fuslana) and taken on the motorcycle, whereas under statement under Section 164 CrPC, Ex.PW1/B she never used the word 'enticed'.In the later statement Ex.PW1/B, the victim stated that after taking her to the room, she was bolted inside and both the accused went away.She stated that about 9.00pm on the same, accused Nitin came inside the room having cold drink which he gave to the victim and she drank.She further stated that thereafter, Aman also came and both of them committed rape on her.These facts are not to be found either in her statement Ex.PW1/A or even in her deposition before the Court.Apart from that she never stated in Ex.PW1/A or before the Court that both accused had locked her inside at the first instance and went away and returned back at 9.00pm in the night.On the contrary, she stated that she was raped for the first time immediately by accused Nitin alone on reaching the said room.She also never alleged before the court that she was raped by both the accused.She had further stated in Ex.PW1/B that she was not knowing as to where she was and when she was crying, both accused had slapped her and thereafter, they went away after closing her inside.She alleged that on the next day only accused Nitin came and committed rape upon her.No one came on the third day and on the fourth day, she stated that only Nitin came and took her on the pretext of offering her eatables and left her on the road behind LIG flats.Counsel submitted that the place where the victim was allegedly left by the accused Nitin has also been stated differently by her in different statements.In Ex.PW1/A, she stated that she was left in a street behind MIG Flats, East of Loni.In Ex.PW1/B, she stated that she was left on a road behind LIG Flats and in the deposition before the Court, she deposed that she was left near LIG Flats, Loni Road.Furthermore, before the doctor, at the time of her medical Crl.L.P. 541/2016 Page 5 of 12 examination, the victim disclosed to the doctor the she was dropped to her school.In the cross-examination, she admitted that MIG and LIG flats are situated in different directions and PS Jyoti Nagar is in front of MIG flats.She denied the suggestion that she had stated different places in Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B as to where she was allegedly abandoned or dropped.She further denied that she had stated in her deposition before the JJB as well as to the doctor that she was left at her school but improved by saying that she had stated that she was left in a gali behind the school which was of LIG flats.L.P. 541/2016 Page 5 of 12The contradictions as recorded above in various statements of the victim and her improvements show that she was not sure as to where she was left by the accused, which raises suspicion about the fact if she was actually abandoned by the accused in the manner deposed by her. ...L.P. 541/2016 Page 7 of 12[See Tameezuddin v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566 (paragraph 9 and 10) and State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Mohd. Rihan, Crl.L.P. 287/2017 dated 15.05.2017 (paragraph 27 and 28)].Accordingly, the first question is decided in the negative inasmuch as the sole testimony of PW-1 could not be made the basis of an order of conviction.The second and third question are linked and revolve upon the justification for the delay in approaching the police by the parents of the prosecutrix and then by her.We note that the prosecutrix went missing on 01.08.2011 from her home and returned on her own in the night of 04.08.2011, but did not reveal anything to her parents.It was on the next morning, i.e. 05.08.2011, that she disclosed everything to her mother (PW-2) who, in turn, disclosed it to her father (PW-7) in the night; only then the report was lodged with the police.Hari Kishan Sharma (PW-5) (father of the prosecutrix) who claimed himself to be a post-graduate, failed to approach the police within reasonable time of his minor daughter gone missing.He only stated that on the evening of 01.08.2011, he had gone to the police station to lodge a complaint, but was turned down by the police was saying that they should search for her on their own as the prosecutrix might of gone to the house of some relative.Other than approaching the police once in four days, when his daughter was missing, PW-5 took no other step in tracing his daughter.Similarly Smt.Mukesh Rani (PW-2) also stated that she searched for her daughter/prosecutrix, but did not even approach her relatives which was allegedly suggested by the police.It is hard to comprehend as to where she was searching then? There is no answer.Further, the factum of having been turned down by the police is not stated by the PW-5 in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.L.P. 541/2016 Page 8 of 12Additionally, when the prosecutrix (PW-1) returned on 04.08.2011, neither of the parents (PW-2 or PW-5) enquired about her whereabouts in the past four days and it was only the next day, when the prosecutrix described the incident.Even then, PW-2 waited till the evening to inform her husband (PW-5).Thus, there is no explanation for either the failure to lodge a missing complaint or the delay in filing an FIR, which opens the possibility of introduction of a coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story.The bench held that the delay created a suspicion about the version of the prosecution and coupled with the improvements and improbabilities in the testimony of the prosecutrix could not establish the guilt of the Crl.L.P. 541/2016 Page 9 of 12 respondent there and went on to uphold the order of acquittal of the Trial Court.The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:L.P. 541/2016 Page 9 of 12If the prosecutrix went missing on the aforesaid date the mother who is expected to have necessitous concern, should have gone to the police station to lodge a missing report which could have prompted the Investigating Officer to act accordingly.It is worthwhile to mention that in rape cases the delay in filing FIR by the prosecutrix is not unusual on account of trauma and agony suffered as also the fear of social stigma.However, what prevented the mother of the prosecutrix to lodge a missing report remains unanswered.PW9 stated that on 15.04.2013 in the evening she searched for her daughter here and there and returned home.Again on 16.04.2013, she searched for her daughter in the morning and found her inside the park.Since she was disturbed she did not talk with the victim.On 17.04.2013 in the evening when she asked her daughter about 15.04.2013 she disclosed the fact of rape.On 18.04.2013 she caught hold of the accused and reported the matter to police.In view of the settled proposistion of law as well as on the above conduct of the mother, no reasonable and plausible explanation has been tendered as to why the FIR was lodged belatedly by the complainant after knowing from her daughter about the alleged rape.Even though, there is no quarrel with the proposition that the stigma attached by our society to a victim of rape may deter her or her family to promptly disclose the incident, but the same could not have deterred the parents of the prosecutrix to lodge a missing report in the four days she was missing.In view of the aforegoing, the last question loses all significance as the prosecution has failed to establish that there was either enticement, confinement or rape.Some supporting evidence was required, but none was led by the prosecution.The leave to appeal is dismissed.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
2,452,200
It is also alleged that the appellants have abused the complainant and humiliated him publically by naming his caste.This appeal on behalf of appellants/accused has been preferred under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 02.08.2017, passed by Special Sessions Judge (Atrocities), Satna in B.A. No.55/2017 in connection with Crime No.02/2017, registered at Police Station AJK, District Satna (M.P) for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1) Da, Dha and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, wherein learned Special Judge has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.It is informed by Government Advocate for the State that the complainant has been noticed.Learned counsel for the appellants has argued at length on merits of the case and submitted that on 18.07.2017 the complainant was making construction illegally on the ancestral property of appellant.The appellant raised objection, but the complainant continued in construction work.The appellant filed a complaint before Tahsildar against complainant and Tahsildar had passed the order and stayed the construction work carried out by the complainant.Being aggrieved of this, the complainant has filed a false complaint and lodge false report against the appellant.Considering the evidence and allegations made by the complainant, no offence under Section SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is made out.The appellant has been falsely implicated in this offence.Learned trial Court has committed illegality while rejecting his prayer for regular bail.Thus, impugned order dated 02.08.2017 be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, they may not be released on bail.Considering the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case diary, it appears that the appellants and complainant are resident of same village and they know each other prior to incident.The complainant belongs to scheduled caste category.It is alleged that the appellants have intercepted the complainant when he was going towards his house, and they have beaten him.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
24,534,274
19.06.2015paaIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / No B.RAJENDRAN,J paaToThe Trial Court proceeded with the case.Ultimately, after trial, the Trial Court convicted the first accused under Section 307 r/w.109 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year; second accused is convicted for the offences under Sections 307, 323 and 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 307 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 148 IPC; accused Nos. 3 to 5 were convicted for the offence under Sections 307 and 148 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 307 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonmnent for one year for the offence under Section 148 IPC.Accused Nos. 6 and 7 were convicted for the offences under sections 147 IPC and 307 r/w. 149 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 147 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 307 read with 149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.Aggrieved by the same, the accused Nos.1 to 7 have filed Crl.A. No. 193 of 2005 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for EC Act Cases, Salem, and the same were dismissed by the Appellate Court, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the accused Nos.1 to 7 by the Trial Court.Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 7, have filed the present Criminal Revision Case.The case of the prosecution is that there was a previous enmity between the defacto complainant and the accused.On 05.07.2001, at about 3.00 p.m., accused Nos.2 to 7, at the instigation of first accused, were alleged to have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and waylaid the defacto complainant and attacked him with Koduval and Thadi and in this context, the defacto complainant has given a complaint, based on which, the accused Nos.1 to 7 were proceeded with for the offences as mentioned above.5. Heard both sides.By consent, this Criminal Revision Case is taken up for final disposal.Apart from that, P.W.1 would state that immediately after the occurrence, he went to the Police Station and from the Police Station accompanied by a Police, he went to the Government Hospital, Mettur, but, the Doctor in his evidence has deposed to the effect that he has recorded the evidence and statement of P.W.1 and he has not mentioned anything regarding the presence of Police Constable or any intimation was sent to the Police Station from the hospital.Apart from that, it is seen that the injury sustained by P.W.1 has not been specifically stated.Further, in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, there is a discrepany in respect of the weapon used for the alleged commission of the offence.Thus, it is evident that there are lot of discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but, now having regard to the fact that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 have already undergone sentence for a period of 67 days and that the parties have arrived at a settlement and the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 7 prayed for showing leniency in reduction of sentence to the effect that the period already undergone may be held sufficient, I am of the view that some leniency can be shown to the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 7 in reducing the sentence.With the above modification in sentence, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.1.The Inspector of Police Jalakandapuram Police Station Mettur Taluk Salem District.2.The Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for EC Act Cases, Salem.3.The Additional Sessions Judge, Mettur.R.C. No. 1054 of 2008 19.06.2015
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
245,364
JUDGMENT P.N. Sinha, J.This revisional application under Section 401 road with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called the Code) has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 31.5.05 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (in short SDJM), Murshidabad, Berhampore in G. R. Case No. 321/04 rejecting prayer of the petitioner for releasing' her from the Silayan Home on her own bond.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that O.P. No. 2 Mantu Fakir is the de facto complainant and on the basis of First Information Report (FIR) lodged by him the Nawda P.S. Case No. 23 dated 13.9.04 under Section 363/ 366/120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) was started.The petitioner married according to her own wishes against the consent of her father.The petitioner married one Mirjamal Sk. @ Mintu Sk.according to her own wishes after attaining puberty.In view of Section 251 of the Mahomedan Law a Muslim woman who attains puberty can marry according to her own wishes without consent of her parents.After marriage the petitioner became pregnant and on the basis of FIR during investigation she was recovered and kept in home.She somehow managed to escape from custody of her father and filed an application for recovery of her baby.After recovery of her baby, the said baby was given to her custody.She is now lodged in the home and she filed an application for releasing her on her own bond, but the learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected her prayer.The petitioner should be detained in Home till she attains majority.She may be released, if she wishes to go to custody of her father.It requires determination as to whether at the time of marriage the petitioner attained puberty.Unless she attains puberty, the provisions of law as embodied in Section 251 of the Mahomedan Law is not applicable and she cannot marry according to her own choice.The learned Magistrate may be directed to enquire into these matters but, for the present, the order of the learned Magistrate does not appear to be illegal or grossly irregular.The submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties make it clear that the petitioner according to FIR was a minor.
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
2,453,766
Record of the lower court has been received.Today this case is listed for admission as well as hearing on IA No.22567/2018, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant.This criminal revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment dated 28/12/2018 passed by 1 st Additional Session Judge, Khandwa, in Criminal Appeal No. 153/2017 confirming the judgment dated 23/08/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Punasa District Khandwa in Criminal Case No.680/2016, whereby the applicant was convicted under section 451, 354, 354A of the IPC and sentenced to R.I for 1 year, R.I for 1 year, and R.I for 1 year with fine amount of Rs.200/- on each count, with stipulation clause as mentioned in the impugned judgment.In brief the prosecution case is that on 06/10/2014 about 7 PM, the prosecutrix (PW-2) was at her home whereby one month before her husband died, the applicant came at her house and showing currency note asked her how much money should she requires and caught hold her hand with bad intention.When she cried and get rid from the applicant and came out of the house, the applicant followed her and threatened that if she made noise and narrated the incident to anybody, he would kill her.On the next day, when her brother Anil came, she went to lodge the FIR at police station Jamkota, where Crime No. 285/2014 under section 354, 354A, 456, 506 Part-II of the IPC was registered and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the applicant before the JMFC, Punasa District Khandwa where charges of the aforesaid offences were framed.The applicant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.His defence was that he has been falsely implicated.After completion of the trial, the applicant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned earlier and his appeal was also dismissed by the 1 st Additional Session Judge, Khandwa.Hence this revision.Hence this criminal revision.
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
24,853,522
The applicant is ready to co-operate in the investigation especially, in seizure of the articles used in the alleged crime.It is alleged against the co-accused persons namely Vidhyarthi and Lohiya that they assaulted the victim Motilal by sharp cutting weapon causing fractures on his left ulna bone and radius bone.Actually, the applicant was not aware that the co-accused persons would assault the victim in such a manner.No offence under Section 326 or 324 of the IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 of the IPC.It is alleged against the applicant that he participated in the crime by assaulting other victims by hard and blunt object.The police is unnecessarily harassing him for minor offences.Consequently, he prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
24,856
!For Appellantsin C.A.206/2005 ... Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Ms.AL.GandhimathiFor Appellantsin C.A.208/2005 ... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for A-4 Mr.S.Veeranasamy for A-5^For Respondent ... Mr.2.The appellants in both these appeals stood charged and tried for thefollowing offences:P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased Malaichamy.Malaichamywas living with his family members at Arasanoor.P.W.3 was running a petty shopnearby the house of Malaichamy.P.W.4 is the cousin brother of Malaichamy, whois also a resident of the said village and whose house is situated near theplace of occurrence.P.W.5 was working as Driver under P.W.8, who is the formerPanchayat President of Arasanoor.In the past, A-3 was watering his lands bytaking water from the well situated in P.W.5's lands.Over that, A-3 was aggrieved.While thematter stood thus, A-3's daughter Booma, fell in love with the brother of P.W.5,Tiruselvam.They wanted to marry, and A-3 was also amenable for that.But, thefamily members of P.W.5 were objecting to the same.Thus, A-3 became furtherangry.While the matter stood thus, the sugarcane field of P.W.5 was ripe forharvest.When P.W.5 made his attempt to harvest, it was objected to by A-3.Under the circumstances, P.W.5 had the help of the deceased Malaichamy for theharvest.Malaichamy took sufficient man power and went over to the field.Despite the objections by A-3, he cut the sugarcane from the field.By this,A-3 developed animosity against Malaichamy.(b) On the date of occurrence, that was on 5.4.2002, A-3 along with A-1,A-2, A-4 and A-5 proceeded to Arasanoor in two two-wheelers marked as M.Os.4 and7 respectively, A-1 and A-2 in one vehicle and A-3 to A-5 in the other.Theyproceeded to the house of the deceased Malaichamy.at about 9.00 P.M., whenMalaichamy was taking food in his house being served by his daughter-in-law.Atthat time, P.W.1 was actually standing in front of the house.Both thesevehicles were stopped.All the accused persons ranaway from the place of occurrence.In the Ambassador Car belonging to P.W.8,Malaichamy was taken to Meenakshi Mission Hospital at Madurai by P.Ws.1 and 4.P.W.12, the Doctor, who was on duty at that time, admitted Malaichamy on5.4.2002 at 10.09 P.M., and the accident register copy in this regard is markedas Ex.The x-ray taken, is marked as Ex.(c) An intimation was given to Othakadai Police Station and in turn, sentto the respondent police.P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police, proceeded toMeenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai, where he recorded the statement of P.W.1,marked as Ex.P1, on the strength of which a case came to be registered by therespondent police in Crime No.24/2002 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307of I.P.C. The printed First Information Report, Ex.P7, was despatched to theCourt.(d) P.W.14, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, on receipt of the copyof the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made aninspection in the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P2, the observationmahazar, and Ex.P14, the rough sketch.Pending the investigation, he firstarrested A-5, who gave a confessional statement.The Investigating Officer came to know thatall other accused surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate's Court.Despitethe treatment, Malaichamy died in the hospital on 13.4.2002 at 8.10 A.M. Then,the case was altered to Sec.302 of I.P.C. The express report, Ex.P15, wasdespatched to the Court.I. A-1 to A-3 - under Sec.148 of I.P.C.II. A-4 and A-5 - under Sec.147 of I.P.C.III. A-1 to A-5 - under Sec.302 read with 34 of I.P.C.3.On trial, they were found guilty as per the charges.A-1 to A-3 wereawarded 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment under Sec.148 of I.P.C. A-4 and A-5 wereawarded 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment under Sec.147 of I.P.C. A-1 to A-5 wereawarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentenceunder Sec.302 read with 34 of I.P.C.4.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can bestated thus:(a) A-1 and A-2 are the sons of A-3. A-4 and A-5 were closely related toA-1 to A-3. A-1 to A-3 belonged to Sangampatti, while A-4 and A-5 belonged tothe nearby village.The accused got down.A-3 shouted "The person whoharvested the sugarcane, must come out." Malaichamy on hearing this, came outand questioned why the accused who belonged to a different place, came there toquarrel with them.At that time, A-1 and A-2 were armed with knives, and A-3had an aruval in hand.Both of them attacked him, while A-3 attacked on hishead; but, it fell on his arms.Malaichamy sustained severe injuries, and hefell down.A-5 was sent for judicial remand.The Investigator made an inquest on the dead body ofMalaichamy in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared aninquest report, Ex.The dead body was sent to Rajaji Government Hospital,Madurai, along with a requisition, Ex.P6, for the purpose of autopsy.(e) P.W.13, the Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Madurai Medical College,Madurai, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead bodyof Malaichamy and found 6 injuries.The Doctor has issued a postmortemcertificate, Ex.P13, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to havedied of complications due to injuries No.1 and 2 sustained by him.(f) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, andthe weapons of crime recovered from A-5, were subjected to chemical analysis bythe Forensic Sciences Department, which resulted in Ex.P19, the ChemicalAnalyst's report.The Investigating Officer completed the investigation andfiled the final report.5.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges wereframed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 14witnesses and also relied on 19 exhibits and 7 material objects.On completionof the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questionedunder Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in theevidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.Onthe side of the defence one Veerayee was examined as D.W.1; but, no documentswere marked.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side, andon scrutiny of the materials available, took the view that the prosecution hasproved the case beyond reasonable doubt.The trial Court entered a judgment ofconviction and imposed the punishment referred to above.Hence, these twoappeals at the instance of the appellants.6.Advancing his arguments on behalf of A-1 to A-3, the learned SeniorCounsel Mr.Before analyzing the evidence of these three witnesses to find out whether itcould be accepted, the Court has to analyze all the incidents that took placepreceding the occurrence.The case of the prosecution was that P.W.5 had landsadjacent to that of A-3, and A-3 was taking water from the well situated inP.W.5's land, and P.W.5 did not help him thereafter, and A-3 developed animosityagainst him, and this is the direct motive for the crime.Following the love, the family members of A-3 were amenablefor the marriage, while P.W.5's family members were not amenable.As far as the scene ofoccurrence is concerned, the witnesses have got different versions.If such an intimation was actually received, the regularprocedure of the Police Station in the usual course would be to record the samein the General Diary; but, no documentary evidence was produced.As rightly pointed out by the learnedSenior Counsel for the appellants, this document, in the opinion of this Court,is actually very vital to the prosecution case.This would be indicative of the fact that after the deathof the concerned person, these statements should have been recorded to suit theprosecution case, and thereafter, it should have been sent.21.Added circumstances are that as far as A-4 and A-5 were concerned,according to the eyewitnesses, they were catching hold of the deceased in thefront and back.If to be so, such injuries as found in the postmortemcertificate, could not have been caused.Further, it is highly doubtful whetherP.Ws.1 to 3 could have been eyewitnesses as claimed by the prosecution.Itremains to be stated that all the weapons of crimes namely M.Os.1 to 3, wererecovered from A-5 immediately on his arrest.The case of the prosecution isnot that A-5 was armed with any weapon or he wielded the same.This Court is of the considered opinion that merely because P.Ws.1 to 3 happenedto be the eyewitnesses, in view of the suspicious circumstances attendant overthe same, it would be highly unsafe to accept the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 tosustain a conviction in a case of murder like this.But, the lower Court hasnot considered any one of the aspects of the matter, as rightly pointed out bythe learned Senior Counsel for the appellants.23.In the result, both these criminal appeals are allowed, setting asidethe judgment of the lower Court.The appellants are acquitted of the chargeslevelled against them.The bail bonds executed by A-4 and A-5, shall standterminated.The fine amounts if any paid by the appellants, will be refunded tothem.The District and Sessions Judge SivagangaiThe Inspector of Police Poovanthi Police Station Poovanthi Taluk Sivagangai District Crime No.24/2002The Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
24,858,845
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.824 of 2015 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 420 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 CRL.O.P.No.8840 of 2018There is no representation for the petitioner.3. Heard Mr.If it appears on a reading of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 CRL.O.P.No. 8840 of 2018 complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the Crime is of the year 2015, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.824 of 2015 and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.12.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order drlhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.8840 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.O.P.No.8840 of 2018 and Crl.MP.No.4567 of 2018 12.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
248,589
Besides the fact that they prove fatal to some animals, even spectators have occasionally fallen victims.In some cases, the spectators have been trampled by the stampeding animals.It is stated that the situation gets worse when the defeated bull starts running away from the field and the victor charges him.Such bull fights are locally known as 'dhirio' and they are in direct contravention of the provisions contained in section 11(1)(m) and section 11(1)(n) of the said Act and that the authorities are duty-bound to take action against the said offenders.It is further contended by the petitioners that the petitioners addressed a letter dated 25th June 1996 to the Chief Secretary of Government of Goa, Panaji, bringing to his notice the cruelty suffered by the animals, who are goaded into killing each other in the process of bull fights and resulting injuries to the animals as well as to the spectators.However, inspite of the repeated appeals, no action has been taken by the respondent to stop the bull fights.It appears that even the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Government of Goa, Panaji vide letter dated 13th August 1996, brought to the notice of the Inspector General of Police, Panaji that the said Act is in force in the State of Goa and that it is necessary that action be taken to prevent violation of the provisions of the said Act. Inspite of this, the bull fights continue to be held in the State of Goa and the newspapers carry advertisement in respect thereof.One of such bull fights was organized on 21st August 1996 in the Village of Taleigao and was attended by one of the Ministers and a Deputy Superintendent of Police.Consequently, the petitioners filed a complaint dated 2nd September 1996 to the Inspector General of Police, Panaji, regarding the said bull fight at Taleigao, held on 21st August 1996 and requested to take necessary steps in the matter.The petitioners further contend that inspite of the said complaint, there have been no action by the respondents and, in fact, on 18th September 1996, the newspaper in Goa reported that one Shri Xavier Rodrigues of Cana Benaulim was killed during the bull fight organized at Ambaji-Fatorda, near Margao.On any given day, there would be fights between 6 to 10 bulls and in the process, bulls get severely hurt and wounded and further they also become insane.Specific procedures are utilised by the bull owners to instigate the bulls to fight with each other and the same is described, in detail, in the articles published in 'Goa Today' and a daily by name 'Herald', copies of which are annexed to the petition as Exhibits 'A' and 'B' respectively.Accordingly, two bulls or buffaloes specially trained and bred for this game only fight against each other, with their owner or trainer standing behind them goading them on.At regular intervals, either mud is rubbed on the back of the animal or water is poured on its back.This is done to agitate or cool down the animal as the need may be.
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
24,860,424
Guideline No.2(A)(a) deals with the circumstances when thecandidate does not disclose the factum of his involvement inthe attestation form and the same is found subsequently fromthe verification report.The candidature of such candidates Page No. 2 of 15 will be cancelled as per aforesaid guideline without makingany reference to any Committee for further probe into theconduct of the candidate.In Guideline No.2(A)(b), it isprescribed that if a candidate has disclosed his involvement insome criminal case in the attestation form, then such case willbe referred to Screening Committee to assess his suitabilityfor appointment in Chandigarh Police irrespective of the factthat the case is under investigation, trial or resulted inconviction or acquittal.Page No. 2 of 15No costs.R. BANUMATHI, J.The question involved in these appeals is whether thecandidature of the respondents who had disclosed theirinvolvement in the criminal cases and also their acquittalcould be cancelled by the Screening Committee on the ground Page No. 1 of 15 that they are not suitable for the post of constable inChandigarh Police and whether the court can substitute itsviews for the decision taken by the Screening Committee.Since the facts and issues are almost identical in all theseappeals, they were heard together and shall stand disposed ofby this common judgment.For convenience, we would dealwith the facts in appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 20750 of2016Page No. 1 of 15On 14.03.2010, an advertisement was issued by UTChandigarh Police through its Deputy Inspector General ofPolice inviting applications from the candidates to fill up 1200temporary posts of Constable (Executive) in Chandigarh Policewith essential qualification as prescribed in the advertisementwith instructions for filling online application form.Therecruitment was to be done as per guidelines thereon as wellas standing order governing the recruitment of constables.Respondents were declared successful in the recruitmentfor the post of Constable (Executive) in Chandigarh Policeafter clearing the Physical Efficiency Test, PhysicalMeasurement Test, written test and interview.However, therespondents were denied the employment on the ground thatthe respondents had been prosecuted in a criminal trial forthe offences under Section 323 IPC and Section 506 read withSection 34 IPC and were acquitted by the trial court videjudgment dated 29.01.2010 giving them benefit of doubt.Thecase was referred to the Committee headed by SeniorSuperintendent of Police and it was found that the Page No. 3 of 15 respondents were not suitable for appointment as Constablesin the Chandigarh Police.Page No. 3 of 15Aggrieved, respondents filed OA before CAT.CAT videorder dated 24.07.2012 allowed the OA and set aside theorders of the Screening Committee and directed thecompetent authority to consider the names of therespondents for appointment to the post of Constable.TheState filed writ petition before the High Court which came tobe dismissed for all the respondents except Ombir holdingthat there was no concealment of criminal antecedents.Beingaggrieved, the State has preferred these appeals.Contention of the appellant is that acquittal of a persondoes not entitle him to be appointed as a matter of right andthe appointing authority may still find such a person unfit tobe appointed to the post.It was urged by the appellant thateven though the respondents were acquitted in the criminalcase, the appointment of the respondents to the post ofConstable in Chandigarh police which is a disciplined force,was found not desirable by the appointing authority.It wassubmitted that the respondents were not honourably Page No. 4 of 15 acquitted of the offences and the acquittal was only based onthe extension of benefit of doubt.Contention of the appellantis that the post of Constable in disciplinary force demands animpeccable integrity and track record besides good characterand suitability.Further contention is that the court cannotoverreach the jurisdiction of the Screening Committee bysubstituting its own view in the decision of the saidCommittee and hence, the impugned judgment of the HighCourt and the Tribunal is not sustainable.Page No. 4 of 15Per contra, contention of the respondents is that thecriminal case against the respondents was a case of 'noevidence' and the acquittal of the respondents is anhonourable acquittal and the same cannot be termed to bethe case of 'benefit of doubt'.Moreover, respondents hadfairly disclosed the factum of facing criminal trial by givingcomplete details while applying for the job and there was nosuppression on the part of the respondents.On behalf of therespondents, much reliance was placed upon Joginder Singh v.Page No. 5 of 15This standing order deals with the cases ofcandidates before issuance of appointment and after issuanceof appointment and joining.The Screening Committee also mustbe alive to the importance of the trust repose in it and mustexamine the candidate with utmost character.Page No. 12 of 15In the case in hand, the details of the criminal cases inwhich the respondents were involved and the reasonings fortheir acquittal and the consideration by the ScreeningCommittee are as under:-Page No. 13 of 15Page No. 14 of 15Page No. 15 of 15From the above details, we find that the ScreeningCommittee examined each and every case of the respondentsand reasonings for their acquittal and taken the decision.While deciding whether a person involved in a criminal casehas been acquitted or discharged should be appointed to apost in a police force, nature of offence in which he isinvolved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only anextension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turnedhostile and flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to beconsidered by the Screening Committee for taking thedecision whether the candidate is suitable for the post.Aspointed out earlier, the Screening Committee examined eachand every case and reasonings for their acquittal and tookdecision that the respondents are not suitable for the post ofConstable in Chandigarh Police.The procedure followed is asper guideline 2(A)(b) and object of such screening is to ensurethat only persons with impeccable character enters policeforce.While so, the court cannot substitute its views for thedecision of the Screening Committee.Page No. 16 of 15Page No. 16 of 15The decision of theScreening Committee that the respondents are not suitablefor being appointed to the post of Constable does not call forinterference.The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view,erred in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committeeand the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.Page No. 17 of 15…....………………………..J.(R. BANUMATHI) …....………………………..J.(UDAY UMESH LALIT)New Delhi;January 08, 2018 Page No. 18 of 15Page No. 18 of 15
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
24,860,983
Heard, Case-diary perused.This is second application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.628/2018, Police Station Barwah, District Khargone, concerning offence under Sections 363, 366-A, 370, 370-A, 376, 376(2)(n), 344, 368 of IPC and sec.5-L/6 of POCSO Act. The first application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.1.2019 passed in M.Cr.As per prosecution case, father of the prosecutrix lodged FIR on 22.11.2018 that somebody had abducted his daughter.On 27.11.2018, her daughter was recovered from the possession of co-accused Pappu.In the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. prosecutrix disclosed that Seema brought her to Barwaha where co-accused Lalita and Kundan came.Thereafter they went to the house of present applicant Tejubai where on the pretext of marriage, they sold her to co- accused Pappu for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.On that basis police registered the aforesaid offence against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent and she has falsely been implicated in the present case.The only allegation against the applicant is that victim was brought to her house by other co-accused persons Seemabai and Lalita who sold the victim to Pappu for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.Under these circumstances, counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE mk MUKTA KAUSHAL 2019.03.14 11:37:05 -07'00'
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
24,861,678
O.P.(MD).No.6072 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.3930 and 3931 of 2019 26.04.2019http://www.judis.nic.inThe present petition is filed to quash the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.396 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Curt No.1,http://www.judis.nic.in Sivakasi, as against the petitioner/accused No.3. 22.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent.Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that after completion of investigation, case has been charge sheeted in S.T.C.No.396 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Curt No.1, Sivakasi5.This Court in A.Santhos Yadav Vs.the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Chennai [2015(40 CTC 317] has held as follows:'A careful reading of Section 285 would show that the mere burning of an effigy, by itself, was not made a punishable offence under the IPC.In fact, there is not even a reference in Section 285 IPC to the burning of effigies'.6.1 Any complaint under Section 188 I.P.C., cannot be taken cognizance and it is not cognizable offence.This Court on perusing the papers satisfied that Section 143 IPC is inserted only to get over the initial lapse in not preferring the complaint for the alleged commission of offence under Section 188 IPC.This Court is in agreement with the reasoning of the said judgment.Turning to allegation of burning an effigy, though it might involve defalcation, yet it cannot be said that it will endanger human life.In view of the above, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.396 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Curt No.1, Sivakasi, is hereby quashed.In fine, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.2.The Inspector of Police,Sivakasi Town Police Station,Virudhunagar DistrictThe Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 N. SESHASAYEE.J., CM Crl.
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
24,864,524
"vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls Jh ch ds 'kekZ vfr.vfHk;qDrx.k lfgr dqekjh xhrk iVok ,M. fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; eas gLrk{kfjr, fnukafdr dj ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k A vfHk;qDrx.k dks jkew mQZ jkeHkjks"k dh gR;k djus ds vijk/k dk nks"kh ikrs gq;s vthou dkjkokl rFkk 2000/-2000/- :i;s ds vFkZn.M rFkk vFkZn.( 24 /01/2011) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought relief to pay compensation of Rs.10 lacs from the State of M.P. and its functionaries on account of the 2 W.P. No. 6368/2000 custodial death of petitioner's son namely Chuttan Singh Kahar @ Uma Shankar.The facts shorn of unnecessary details lie in narrow compass.Admittedly, the petitioner's son was on bail and was appearing in the trial by availing the bail facility.The judgment was to be pronounced by the Trial Court on 17.7.2000 and indeed it was so pronounced on that date by the said Court.Union of India and another AIR 1997 SC 1203, Chairman, Railway Board and others Vs.Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on Reeves Vs.Commissioner of Police (1993) 3 All England Reports.Learned senior counsel further submits that the respondents have not filed any return and, therefore, whatever averments are made in the memo of writ petition, they shall be deemed to be admitted and hence since it is not in dispute that the deceased had died in the custody of the respondents, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation.W.P. No. 6368/2000However, if the answer is in affirmative then whether petitioner is entitled for the compensation in the peculiar facts and circumstances, this is to be ascertained.For arriving at a proper and just conclusion, it will be necessary to ascertain as to how and in what circumstances he had died.This Court thinks it apposite to quote the order-sheet of the trial Court dated 17.7.2000 (annexure P/2) which reads thus:-M vnk u djus ij 6-6 ekg ds vfrfjDr lJe dkjkokl dh ltk nh x;h A vfHk;qDrx.k dks fu.kZ; dh fu 'kqYd izfr nh tkos A vfHk;qDrx.k dk tsy okjaV cukdj tsy Hkstk tkos A "Izkdj.k dh tIr'kqnk oLrqvkas dks vihy vof/k ckn u"V fd;s tkus ds vkns'k fn;s x;s A izdj.k fu;r vof/k eas vfHkys[kkxkj Hkstk tkos A vfrfjDr l= U;k.i'pkr :-Copy of the judgment of the trial Court pronounced on that date has been filed as annexure P/1 along with the petition.The petitioner's son came along with his counsel in the Court and when he arrived in the Court nobody could say that he was in police custody.The circumstances in which the petitioner's son had died is axiomatic and in these state of affairs, if the petitioner's son consumed poisonous substance which was brought by him on his own as he was availing the bail facility and was not in the custody of the police, I am of the view that the State and its functionaries cannot be saddled with the compensation.Apart from the reasons which I have assigned herein above, the relief which is to be granted while exercising powers conferred to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since it is a discretionary relief and because the petitioner's son was availing the bail facility and came to the Court of his own and while coming to the court the State of M.P. and its functionaries were not having any 7 W.P. No. 6368/2000 domain over him and was not having any check that what he has brought with him, therefore, in these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant discretionary relief to the petitioner.(A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE rao 8 W.P. No. 6368/2000
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
24,877,336
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in Juvenile Case No.43 of 2019 on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board and learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1532 of 2020The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a juvenile, at the time of occurrence and he was only 15 years old.In respect of the other accused in S.C.No.85 of 2015 before the Sessions Court, the respondent has examined 14 prosecution witnesses [P.W.1 to P.W.14] and marked 18 documents [Ex.P1 to P.18] and also marked 2 material objects (M.O.1 and M.O.2).The trial Court after full-fledged trial, acquitted all the accused on the charges under Sections 147, 148, 448, 114, 294 (b), 342, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. He would further submit that in the case before the Juvenile Justice Board, the prosecution is relying on the same set of witnesses and the same materials and thereby no useful purpose will be served by allowing the trial against the petitioner, which would result in acquittal.The case of the petitioner is inseparable and indivisible from that of the other accused and the petitioner could not be treated differently.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1532 of 2020The State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal in S.C.No.85 of 2015 and the defacto complainant has also not preferred any appeal against the acquittal order.The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses, marked 18 Exhibits and 2 Material Objects.The trial Court after full-fledged trial had acquitted the accused.Even the eye witnesses have not spoken anything about the present petitioner.No appeal has been preferred by the state against the order of acquittal and the order of acquittal has become final.As stated earlier, the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the other accused and the materials relied on by the prosecution are one and the same.The evidence against the accusedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1532 of 2020 persons mainly consists of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, namely, Karan Singh (PW 2) and Smt. Asha Rani (PW-5) (Wife of the deceased Balwan Singh) besides the dying declaration (Ex.PW-13/A) of the deceased Balwan Singh.Both the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and so they have been declared hostile by the prosecution.Eliminating the evidence of the said eye-witnesses, there remains the dying declaration (Ex.O.P.(MD)No.1532 of 2020 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.Ls To:1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.2.The Inspector of Police, Sullakarai Circle, Amathur Police StationThe Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1532 of 2020 30.01.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
77,351,556
In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 14.08.2018 in connection with Coke Oven P.S. Case No. 94 of 2018 dated 20.06.2018 under Sections 498A/304B/506/34of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Manoranjan Ghosh ... ... petitioner Mr. Uttiya Ray ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Ms. Debjani Sahu ... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Coke Oven P.S. Case No. 94 of 2018 dated 20.06.2018 under Sections 498A/304B/506/34of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner is the husband of the victim who allegedly committed suicide within three months of her marriage.In addition, the petitioner is directed to meet the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
773,590
JUDGMENT R.S. Mohite, J.1. Rule.By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.As the common point is involved in all these applications, all the applications are disposed of by way of common judgment.In this criminal application, the applicant who is a police head constable, in-charge of Malkhana seeks to quash and set aside the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur dated 3-4-2000 refusing discharge on the ground of non obtaining of sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code as well as the order of the Revisional Court dated 4-8-2000 rejecting the revision against the aforesaid order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur.
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
77,359,709
The learned Sessions Judge also directed that on payment of fine amount as directed above, an amount of Rs.30,000/- be given to the mother of deceased Priyanka.2 The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under:(i) Deceased Priyanka was the wife of the appellant.After marriage, the appellant and Priyanka were residing in Sanjay Gandhi Zopadpatti at Sangli.The appellant was doing labour work.The appellant was addicted to liquor.::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:52 :::months prior to the incident, the appellant was intoxicated and assaulted Priyanka on the ground that she did not prepare food properly.Hence, Priyanka went to her maternal home.There she informed her parents that her husband used to quarrel with her after coming home in an intoxicated state.Thereafter the appellant came to the maternal house of Priyanka to take her back.The appellant assured parents of Priyanka that henceforth he will not assault Priyanka and thus, parents of Priyanka allowed the appellant to take Priyanka to matrimonial home.Priyanka prepared dinner.The appellant came home at about 11 p.m. in an intoxicated state.He told Priyanka to serve him dinner.Priyanka served him dinner.Then the appellant told Priyanka to also have dinner with him.Priyanka refused to have dinner with him.Then the appellant started quarreling with Priyanka by abusing and assaulting her.The appellant told Priyanka that they should both die and he poured kerosene on himself and Priyanka.Thereafter, he set Priyanka on fire.On seeing Priyanka on fire, the appellant poured water on Priyanka to 3 ::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:52 ::: jdk 4 of 13 10.cri.apeal.593.14.j.doc extinguish the fire.Then the appellant opened the door of the house and both the appellant and Priyanka came out of the house.After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.In due course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.3 Charge came to be framed against the appellant under sections 302 and 498-A of IPC.DATE : MARCH 07, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER SMT.By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC.For the offence under Section 302 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- i/d R.I. for six months and for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to R.I.::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:52 :::for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/- i/d R.I. for 10 days.The learned Sessions Judge directed that substantive sentences shall run concurrently.The appellant then admitted Priyanka in the Civil hospital at Sangli.In the hospital, the dying declaration (Exh.::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:52 :::27) of Priyanka came to be recorded.This dying declaration was treated as F.I.R. Thereafter investigation commenced.Initially the offence came to be registered under Sections 307 and 498-A of IPC.Priyanka expired on 5.2.2011 on account of shock due to 61% mixed infective burns.Thereupon Section 307 of IPC was converted to Section 302 of IPC.The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.The defence of the appellant is that of total denial and false implication.After going through the evidence adduced in the present case, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1 above, hence, this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:52 :::and the learned A.P.P. for the State.After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Judge and the evidence on record, for the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the appellant poured kerosene on his wife Priyanka and set her on fire which led to her death.5 The main evidence against the appellant is that of dying declaration (Exh. 27) of Priyanka.After the appellant set Priyanka on fire, he extinguished the fire and took her to the hospital.In the hospital, PW 2 Special Executive Magistrate Ms. Malap recorded the dying declaration of Priyanka.The S.E.M. Malap has stated that on 23.1.2011 at about 3.15 a.m. she received phone call from the police chowky informing her that one newly married lady is admitted in the Civil hospital, Sangli with burn injuries and her statement was to be recorded.Thereafter Ms. Malap reached the Civil hospital at Sangli.She made enquiry with Doctor whether the patient was in a position to give a statement.::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:52 :::jdk 6 of 13 10.cri.apeal.593.14.j.doc Doctor examined the patient and said that the patient was in a position to give a statement.The Doctor gave his opinion in writing.Thereafter Ms. Malap put questions to the patient and recorded her statement.Priyanka told the S.E.M. that her marriage with the appellant took place one year two months prior to the incident.Her husband used to drink liquor and used to beat her.Her husband used to tell that she cannot cook food properly.Priyanka further stated to S.E.M. that some days prior to the incident, she was beaten by her husband, hence, she went to the house of her parents.Thereafter her parents pacified her and her husband who had come to take her, hence, she went along with her husband back to her matrimonial house.Priyanka has further stated that on the day of the incident at about 11 p.m. her husband came home.Her husband asked her to serve dinner.She then served dinner to her husband.Her husband also asked to take dinner with him but she refused.Because of this, a quarrel took place between her and her husband.Then her husband said that he will also not take dinner and both of them will die.Saying this, her husband poured kerosene on her and on his own person.Then her 6 ::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:52 ::: jdk 7 of 13 10.cri.apeal.593.14.j.doc husband set her on fire with match-stick.::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:52 :::6 PW 2 S.E.M. Malap has stated that when she reached Civil hospital, she enquired with the Doctor whether the patient was in a position to give a statement.The Doctor examined the patient and stated that the patient was in a position to give a statement.This opinion was given in writing which is at Exh.Dr. Dhanke has stated that on 23.1.2011 at about 6.00 a.m. Special Executive Magistrate came to the hospital.She requested him to examine the patient and to tell about the condition of the patient.Accordingly, he examined the patient and opined that the patient Priyanka is conscious, oriented and able to give a statement.He gave this opinion in writing.Dr. Dhanke further stated that thereafter the S.E.M. recorded the statement of Priyanka.He was present when the S.E.M. recorded the statement of Priyanka.Dr. Dhanke has stated that after completion of recording statement, he again examined the patient and found that the patient was still conscious, oriented 7 ::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:52 ::: jdk 8 of 13 10.cri.apeal.593.14.j.doc and cooperative during the entire process of recording the statement.::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:52 :::7 In addition to the dying declaration which is at Exh.27, Priyanka made a dying declaration to Dr. Dhanke.Dr. Dhanke has stated that on 23.1.2011 at about 1.15 a.m. Priyanka was admitted in the burn ward.He was working as Resident Doctor in the burn ward.ig He recorded the history given by the patient i.e. Priyanka.The patient told him about a quarrel with her husband and that her husband poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.He recorded this history in the case papers.8 In addition to the above evidence, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW 3 Rahul who was the brother of Priyanka, to show that an oral dying declaration implicating the appellant was made by Priyanka to Rahul.Rahul has stated that Priyanka was his sister.Initially they were happily cohabiting.After sometime, as the appellant was addicted to liquor, he started illtreating his sister.His sister used to inform 8 ::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:52 ::: jdk 9 of 13 10.cri.apeal.593.14.j.doc him on phone from time to time about the illtreatment by the appellant to her.Three months prior to the incident, his sister came to his house.She told that she was not ready to cohabit with her husband as her husband after consuming liquor, used to beat and illtreat her.After four days, the appellant, his mother and one Corporator came to their house.The mother of the appellant and Corporator explained to the appellant as well as Priyanka and pacified them.The appellant apologized and stated that he will not drink liquor any more hence, Priyanka agreed and went with the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:52 :::9 Rahul has further stated that on 30.12.2010 his sister came to house on occasion of his marriage.At that time, his sister told him about illtreatment and beating to her at the hands of her husband.Priyanka was not willing to go back to the house of the appellant.Then the appellant talked with the elder sister of Priyanka and promised her that he will not drink liquor and he will not give illtreatment to Priyanka.On this promise about 15 days prior to the incident, Priyanka went to cohabit with the appellant On 23.1.2011, Rahul was informed that that the appellant had poured kerosene on Priyanka and 9 ::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:53 ::: jdk 10 of 13 10.cri.apeal.593.14.j.doc set her on fire, hence, he went to civil hospital at Sangli to meet Priyanka.He met her on 24.1.2011 at about 1 a.m. On enquiry, Priyanka told him that the appellant came to the house after consuming liquor and quarrled with her on account of taking dinner.Priyanka then told him that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:53 :::It is the prosecution case that the appellant poured kerosene on his wife Priyanka and set her on fire.The prosecution case is also supported by the post-mortem notes which show that Priyanka had sustained 61% burns.It is further supported by C.A. report Exh. 37 which shows that the maxi worn by Priyanka and baniyan worn by the appellant tested positive for kerosene residues.11 Thus, all the evidence taken together shows that the appellant poured kerosene on his wife Priyanka and set her on fire.12 Mrs. Upadhyay submitted that the present case would not fall under Section 302 of IPC but it would, at the most, fall 10 ::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:53 ::: jdk 11 of 13 10.cri.apeal.593.14.j.doc under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.She submitted that the appellant had no intention to cause death of his wife Priyanka.::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:53 :::In support of this contention, she placed reliance on the dying declaration (Exh. 27) recorded by PW 2 S.E.M. Ms. Malap.In the dying declaration, Priyanka has stated that after her husband set her on fire, he extinguished the fire and in the process, her husband also sustained burn injuries.Thereafter her husband admitted her in the Civil hospital.Ms. Upadhyay submitted that the fact that the appellant extinguished the fire and admitted Priyanka in the hospital, shows that he had no intention to kill his wife Priyanka.13 No doubt, the evidence on record shows that it was the appellant who set Priyanka on fire, however, the pivotal question which arises in the facts and circumstances of this case is, what is the nature of the offence proved against the appellant ? It is an admitted fact that the appellant set Priyanka on fire.However, after Priyanka caught fire, the appellant poured water on fire and extinguished the fire.Thereafter the appellant admitted Priyanka in the Civil hospital.This conduct cannot be seen divorced from the totality of the 11 ::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:53 ::: jdk 12 of 13 10.cri.apeal.593.14.j.doc circumstances.Very probably the appellant would not have anticipated that the act done by him would have escalated to such a proportion that she might die.If he had ever intended Priyanka to die, he would not have poured water on Priyanka in an effort to save her.In view of the evidence on record, we are inclined to think that all that the appellant thought of was to inflict burns on her and to frighten her but unfortunately the situation slipped out of his control and it went to a fatal extent.::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:53 :::In the facts of this case, it is obvious that the appellant realized his folly and was filled with remorse and therefore, he extinguished the fire.14 In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence under Section 498-A of IPC is maintained, however, we alter the conviction of the appellant 1 (2000) 10 S.C.C. 324 12 ::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:53 ::: jdk 13 of 13 10.cri.apeal.593.14.j.doc from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304-II of IPC.In our opinion, sentence of imprisonment of eight years with fine as imposed by the trial Court in default R.I. for three months, meets the ends of justice.The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 29.3.2012 in Sessions Case No. 90 of 2011, is accordingly modified.::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:53 :::16 Office to communicate this order to the appellant through the concerned Superintendent of Prison.17 We quantify legal fees to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee to appointed advocate Ms. Sarojini Upadhyay at Rs.5000/-.[SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]kandarkar 13 ::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:01:53 :::
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
77,363,609
He was earlier granted bail but jumped jail.Hence, the appellant wassecured after executing non-bailable warrant.The records indicate that theaccused is facing trial in multiple cases including 302 IPC.The learned Government Advocate would submit that there is lifethreat to the appellant and if he is released on bail under any condition,his life will be in danger.Further, learned Government Advocate would also submit that two moreaccused are still at large and due to their abscondance, the Court below isnot able to commit the case to the Sessions Court.Heard Mr.R.Aravind Raj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant andMr.A.Robinson, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for thefirst respondent.The petitioner herein, is facing trial for offence under section 302IPC.Considering the statement, bail is granted to the appellant on thefollowing condition:(i) The appellant shall stay at Sivagangai Town and report before the TownPolice Station (except on the day of hearing), daily at 10:30 a.m.;(ii) the appellant shall be enlarged on bail, on his executing of a bond forRs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to thesatisfaction of II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli ;(iii) the appellant shall attend the trial, without fail;(iv) the appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or witness andThe II Additional District & Sessions Judge, TirunelveliThe Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
77,368,780
Spring season is a time when nature becomes green and flower blooms in all colours.This spring why the colour of peace is eluding the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) situated in the heart of Delhi needs to be answered by its students, faculty members and those managing the affairs of this national university.On 9th February, 2016 a programme was proposed to be organised under the title 'Poetry Reading - The Country Without A Post Office' at Sabarmati Dhaba, Jawaharlal Nehru University.Since the title of the programme did not suggest anything objectionable, permission was granted.He is pursuing Ph.d.In the said speech, the petitioner had raised his voice against those who were trying to break the country and break JNU.He has asserted that JNU will strengthen the voice of democracy, voice of independence, freedom of expression and he has expressed full faith in the Constitution of India.Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of FIR wherein referring to the Zee News Programme telecasted on 10th February, 2016 in the evening, it has been recorded that in the clipping, JNU students were seen raising anti- national slogans (Pakistan Jindabad).However, this slogan does not find mention in the thirty slogans quoted from pages 3 to 5 of the status report filed by the State.Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that role of the petitioner Kanhaiya Kumar is limited to the extent that he reached the spot in his capacity as President of JNU Students Union, on coming to know about the tension between the two groups.After the situation came under control, he left the spot.There was no untoward incident leading to violence in the campus on that day.The petitioner is stated to have reached the spot at about 7.30 pm and it is mentioned in the status report (para 32) that after the situation was brought under control by W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 6 of 23 8.30 - 9.00 pm, all the students reached Ganga Dhaba, some of the leaders including petitioner addressed them and thereafter they dispersed.The speech made by the petitioner Kanhaiya Kumar on 11th February, 2016 cannot be termed as anti-national and whatever he has stated in that speech is within his right to freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution of India.Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been remanded to police custody thrice and he is no more required for investigation.In the circumstances, he may be ordered to be released on bail.W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 6 of 23Tushar Mehta, learned ASG for the State has submitted that on 8 th February, 2016 permission was initially sought by a group of students for organising a cultural evening at Sabarmati Dhaba at JNU Campus which was granted.BANDOOK KI DUM PE LENGE AAZADI.' W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 11 of 23 W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 12 of 23 W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 13 of 23 W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 14 of 23 W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 15 of 23W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 11 of 23W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 12 of 23W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 13 of 23W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 14 of 23W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 15 of 23The petitioner is President of JNU Students Union and actively involved in various activities carried out in the University.He admits his presence at the spot on the alleged date of occurrence.The photographs of the incidents placed on record have been filed to show his presence at the spot.Research themes evolve with new developments in the area and the interface between different areas of study.Everyone at the university competes with himself/herself to excel in their own field of research.1. 'Rang hara Hari Singh Nalve se, Rang laal hai Lal Bahadur se, Rang bana basanti Bhagat Singh, Rang aman ka veer Jawahar se.Mere Desh ki Dharti sona ugle Ugle here moti mere desh ki dharti'This patriotic song from 'Upkaar' by Lyricist Indeevar symbolizes individual characteristics representing by different colours and love for motherland.When the posters of the said programme revealed the topic of the programme to be organized that evening, the authorities at JNU acted swiftly by cancelling the permission and communicating the same to the organizers as well the security staff.What followed thereafter has been recorded in FIR No.110/2016 under Section 124-A/34 IPC at PS Vasant Kunj North.The status report shows that now the case is under investigation for the offence punishable under Sections 124-A/120-B/34/147/149 IPC.W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 2 of 23In the writ petition bearing W.P.(Crl.) No.29/2016 the Supreme Court on 19.02.2016 ordered for transmitting the record of bail petition of petitioner Kanhaiya Kumar to High Court of Delhi for hearing by passing the following order:-We also grant liberty to the petitioner to file such further petitions or other material which he deems appropriate to bring the application in tune with the requirement of law.We permit the petitioner to move the Delhi High Court today.We request the Delhi High Court to consider the application expeditiously and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.Having regard to the background in which the instant application came to be filed, certain apprehensions were expressed at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner and other learned members of the Bar that some special precautions are required to be taken which the proceedings are taken by the Delhi High Court to ensure the safety of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the journalists.Having regard to the history of the case, we deem it appropriate to request the High Court to take such appropriate steps at it deems fit and proper to ensure the peaceful conduct of the proceedings.We also place on record that the learned Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India as well as the Commissioner of Police, Delhi assure that all necessary precautions will be taken in consultation with the Registrar W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 3 of 23 General of the Delhi High Court for the peaceful conduct of the case.W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 3 of 23The writ petition is disposed of and transmitted to the Delhi High Court.The Registry is directed is transmit the papers to the Delhi High Court forthwith along with the order.'This is how the bail application of the petitioner made in W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 is being heard by this Court.Referring to the contents of FIR, the petitioner has claimed that there was no incident of violence after the alleged incident of raising alleged anti- national slogans.Rather the JNU Campus remained peaceful and no disturbance was reported from within the campus.The so called video recording of the incident by some channels has been reported to be doctored by the Press.The petitioner has been remanded to police custody thrice and has also joined the investigation.He is no more required for investigation of this case.In his speech delivered on 11th February, 2016 the petitioner has projected himself to be a law abiding citizen having full faith in the Constitution.The petitioner has claimed himself to be a public figure and member of AISF Students Political Party affiliated to Communist Party of India.He is also President of Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union.W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 4 of 23at School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.He has deep roots in the society.The petitioner has agreed to abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed in case he is ordered to be released on bail.Detailed status report has been filed by the State which also includes slogans raised and some of photographs of the event.I have heard Mr.Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned ASG for the State and Mr.Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) for Govt. of NCT of Delhi.Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner Kanhaiya Kumar has submitted that the incident dated 9th February, 2016 has to be divided in three parts :-Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has placed on record the photocopy of the proforma for booking venue for the event and the undertaking annexed therewith which is not signed by the petitioner.W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 5 of 23Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no role in that event.His name also does not appear on the poster about the topic of that event, contents of which were considered anti-national by JNU authorities.The petitioner has not been seen raising anti-national slogans in any of the video footage.Rather on 11 th February, 2016 the petitioner had given a speech, full text of which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-G (as reported by Indian Express).The subject matter of the programme was referred to as 'Poetry Reading - The Country Without A Post Office'.Tushar Mehta, learned ASG for the State has referred to further developments.The JNU authorities on getting the information that in the guise of cultural function, some anti-national activities were to take place, cancelled the permission and the organising group was duly informed.The reason being that the posters about the proposed programme were against the judicial killing of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt and have been put up at all the hostels and these activities were likely to disrupt the peace and harmony of the campus.Apprehending breach of peace at the campus, the Chief Security Officer, JNU as well local police was informed.There were arguments between the students on one side and security staff on other side W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 7 of 23 on fixing the mike and other equipments.The local police assisted by security staff and positioned themselves between the two groups to maintain distance between them.The shouting of anti-national slogans continued unabated which were opposed/countered by the other group of students by shouting slogans in support of the nation.In this process, the students from both the groups had at many times engaged in verbal as well as physical jostling and heckling.This situation led to law and order problem which disturbed the public order in JNU campus.The situation was brought under control by 8.30 to 9.00 pm.Both the groups reached Ganga Dhaba where some of the students leaders addressed the assembly before dispersing.W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 7 of 23Tushar Mehta, learned ASG for the State has further stated that on the basis of telecast by Zee News on 10 th February, 2016 about the incident at JNU on 9th February, 2016, raw video footage was obtained from that channel and thereafter FIR No.110/2016 under Sections 124-A/120- B/34/147/149 IPC was registered at PS Vasant Kunj North.Alongwith the status report, the State has placed on record certain photographs to point out that some of the persons in the photographs are covering their faces.Their identity and links are not known to the investigating agency.Posters having photographs of Afzal Guru have been held by the students.The posters for the programme to be organised on 9 th February, 2016 is with the heading 'Against the judicial killing of Afzal Guru & Maqbool Bhatt'.The permission was applied by co-accused Umar Khalid on the prescribed proforma for 'Poetry Reading - The Country Without A Post Office' and it was only from the posters circulated on 9th February, 2016 that the authorities at JNU came to know about the nature of the programme being anti-national resultantly permission was withdrawn.W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 8 of 23Tushar Mehta, learned ASG for the State has referred to the statement of various witnesses recorded under Section 161 CPC to describe the role played by the petitioner in organising as well as during the event.It has been submitted that merely because the petitioner is not a signatory on the application form for seeking permission for the programme, is not sufficient to infer that he has nothing to do with the event.Attention of this Court has been drawn to the fact that as per the statement of witnesses (learned ASG did not want to disclose the identity of the witnesses examined under Section 161 CrPC though copies of same have been placed on record), the petitioner also talked to the concerned authorities showing his resentment about the cancellation of the permission and his active participation in the event, which led to a situation that police had to be called and both the factions of the students raising slogans were separated.Tushar Mehta, learned ASG for the State has further submitted that the speech given by the petitioner on 11th February, 2016 was part of his strategy to create a defence.Referring to the details of the investigation conducted till filing of the status report as well various aspects on which the investigation is yet to be conducted, prayer for bail has been strongly opposed on the ground that the slogans raised during the programme as well honoring martyrdom of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt justified registration of a case under Sections 124- A/120-B/34/147/149 IPC against the petitioner and other accused persons involved which can be established not only by video footage but also by independent evidence.W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 9 of 23Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Criminal) for Government of NCT of Delhi has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner may be released on bail.The writ petitioner before this Court is President of JNU Students Union.His presence at the spot on the day of incident when alleged anti- national event was organised, is not disputed.He explains his presence for not to participate in the activities but to control the unpleasant situation that had arisen because of conflict between two factions of the students having different political affiliations.The FIR in this case has been registered only about three weeks back.The investigation has now been transferred to Special Cell.4. INDIAN ARMY MURDABAD5. BHARAT TERE TUKKDE HONGE- INSHAALLAHA INSHAALLAHAAFZAL KI HATYA NAHI SAHENGE NAHIThe thoughts reflected in the slogans raised by some of the students of JNU who organized and participated in that programme cannot be claimed to be protected as W.P.(Crl.) No.558/2016 Page 21 of 23 fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.During the period spent by the petitioner in judicial custody, he might have introspected about the events that had taken place.To enable him to remain in the main stream, at present I am inclined to provide conservative method of treatment.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to release the petitioner on interim bail for a period of six months.The petitioner is granted interim bail for a period of six months on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of 10,000/- and an undertaking on above lines, with one surety, who should preferably be a Faculty member of Jawaharlal Nehru University, to the satisfaction of learned concerned Metropolitan Magistrate/Link Metropolitan Magistrate, with the condition that he shall not leave the country without the permission of the Court.The surety shall also furnish an undertaking on the lines similar to that of the petitioner.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
77,368,851
Briefly facts stated are that on 01.01.2012, information was received in Police Station-Jahangirpuri about a quarrel vide DD No.76 B. ASI Naresh along with Ct.Rahul visited the spot for investigation.On reaching the spot, they came to know that the injured persons have been taken to BJRM hospital.The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.All pending Crl.A.1089/2016 Page 4 of 5 application(s) also stand disposed of.A.1089/2016 Page 5 of 5A.1089/2016 Page 5 of 5The instant appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 31.08.2016 and order on sentence dated 22.09.2016, whereby the appellant- Kuldeep was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 304 (II)/308/34 IPC.Aggrieved by the said judgment and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.ASI Naresh collected MLCs of Adil, Javed and Vishal.ASI Naresh recorded the statement of injured/complainant Vishal.On the basis of said statement, FIR No.03/2012 Crl.A.1089/2016 Page 1 of 5 was registered.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the appellant and his associates were charged for committing various offences.The prosecution examined 20 witnesses in order to prove its case.Upon appreciation of evidence and after considering the contentions of the appellant and his associates, they all were convicted by the impugned judgment.By an order dated 22.09.2016, the appellant was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and also a fine of Rs.25,000/- for offence punishable under Section 304(II)/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment.He was also awarded three years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment.All the sentences were to operate concurrently.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.A.1089/2016 Page 1 of 5Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to consider the mitigating circumstances.Since the appellant has given up challenge to the findings on conviction and there is ample evidence to base conviction, the conviction for the aforesaid offences stands affirmed.In the present case, after weighing the Crl.Trial Court record be sent back forthwith along with the copy of the judgment.One copy of the judgment be also sent to the Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance for release of appellant.A.1089/2016 Page 4 of 5I.S. MEHTA (JUDGE) JUNE 07, 2017 Crl.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
773,696
(a) P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased Prakasam.P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased.All were living in the same place.There was often quarrel among the women folks while taking water from the public pipe.On 9.9.2003 at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.4 went to take water in the public pipe .At that time, A2 snatched the pot from P.W.4 and threw it away.Therefore, there was a quarrel between them.P.W.1 intervened and pacified the situation.At that time, the first accused was not there.When P.W.4 informed it to the first accused, the first accused went to the house of P.W.4 and shouted at P.W.4 and deceased Prakasam.The deceased Prakash questioned A1 as to how he and his family members could used filthy language against them.At that time, A1 suddenly caught hold of the shirt of the deceased, took an aruval and cut him on his head.A2 who was having an axe attacked the deceased.Both A1 and A2 attacked P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the same was witnessed by P.Ws. 3 and 4 and other witnesses.The deceased fell down dead.P.W.1 and P.W.2 took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Pennagaram.P.W.8, Nurse who was on duty at 8.15 p.m. gave first aid to both P.Ws.1 and 2 and an intimation was given to the respondent Police Station.P.W.15, the Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the information, proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and prepared Ex.P1 report and at 9.30 p.m., a case came to be registered in Crime No.560 of 2003 under section 302 and 307 I.P.C. The express F.I.R was dispatched to Court.(b) P.W.16 the Inspector of Police, took up investigation.He proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P3 and also drew a rough sketch Ex.He recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence and conducted inquest in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report Ex.P25 and the dead body was sent for autopsy.(c) On receipt of the requisition, P.W.11, doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and gave his opinion in the post mortem certificate Ex.P14 that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained 12-24 hours prior to post mortem.P.W.10 doctor attached to the Government Dharmapuri gave treatment to P.Ws.1 and 2 and issued the wound certificates which were marked as Exs.P12 and P.11 respectively.A1 came forward to give confessional statement and the same was recorded in the presence of two witnesses.Pursuant to confessional statement, she produced Koduval which was recovered under a cover of mahazar and the accused were sent for judicial remand.(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Dharmapuri made in S.C.No.116 of 2004 whereby the first appellant herein stood charged under section 302 IPC and 307 IPC(2 counts) and the second appellant herein stood charged under sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. and on trial, the learned trial Judge found them guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 307 I.P.C along with fine and default sentences.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:(e) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body and also from the accused, pursuant to the confessional statement were sent for chemical analysis through the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court and the reports were received viz., chemical report marked as Ex.P17 and the serologist reports marked as Exs.On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report.(f) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and relied on 26 exhibits and 17 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.They gave written statement stating it was the deceased who took aruval and was about to attack them, therefore, in exercise of private defence, they have acted so.No defence witness was examined.The Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and rendered the judgment of conviction and sentence as stated above.Under such circumstances, this appeal has arisen at the instance of the appellants.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel would submit, in the instant case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 6 as eye witnesses.Thus, P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have seen the occurrence at all.Therefore, insofar as this witness is concerned, she could not have seen the occurrence at all.The defence plea was that at the time of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused and at that time, it was the deceased who took the aruval and was about to attack the accused and in that process, he got injuries and when P.Ws. 1 and 2 intervened, they also sustained injuries.A careful scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased would clearly reveal that the defence story was probable but not the prosecution story.Added further learned counsel, in the instant case, it is the case of the prosecution that A2 actually attacked the deceased with axe and the injuries found in the post mortem certificate was incised wounds.Hence, the injuries could not have been caused by A2 at all.The medical opinion canvassed, despite cross examination of the medical person examined as P.W.11 will prove the same.Added further, P.W.1 has categorically deposed that she was attacked by one person.A2 had nothing to do with that.From the inception till the end not even one of the witnesses have spoken about the involvement of A2 with the crime.Thus, A2 has been falsely implicated in the case.The Court learned the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.It is not in controversy that on the date of occurrence that was on 9.9.2003 one Prakasam was done to death in the incident that had taken place at 7.30 p.m. Following the inquest made by the investigating officer, the dead body was subjected to post mortem and P.W.11 doctor who has conducted autopsy, gave his opinion in the post mortem certificate Ex.P.14 that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.The cause of death as put forth by the prosecution was never disputed by the appellants before the trial Court.Hence, it could be safely recorded that the deceased died out of homicidal violence.This evidence of P.W.2 fully corroborates with the evidence of P.W.4. P.W.4 had stated that when she accompanied the deceased, A1 was having aruval and A2 was having an axe and it was A1 who attacked the deceased and the deceased fell down.Had it been true that A2 was having an axe and had attacked the deceased, it should not have been the incised wounds.Apart from this, insofar as A1 is concerned, the recovery of the weapon pursuant to the confessional statement and the evidence recorded by the trial Court remains unshaky.All would go to show that A1 has attacked the deceased with aruval and caused instantaneously death.It was A1 along with his wife went to the house of the deceased and questioned them.At that time, the occurrence has taken place.Therefore, A2 cannot be fastened with the liability either under section 302 IPC or under any other provisions of law, inasfar as the deceased is concerned.Insofar as the injuries caused to P.Ws.1 and 2 are concerned, the accident registers were marked as Exs.P12 and P.11 respectively.P.W.1 has categorically deposed that she was attacked by one person and it was caused by aruval and it was A1 who cut her.Insofar as A2/2nd appellant is concerned, the conviction and sentenced imposed under Section 302 I.P.C. are set aside and A2 is acquitted of the said charge.The conviction and sentence imposed on A2 under Section 307 I.P.C. are modified, instead A2/2nd appellant is found guilty under section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.The sentence already undergone by A2 is ordered to be given set off.The fine amount imposed under section 307 IPC shall be treated as the fine amount for the offence under section 324 IPC.Now, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the appellants that A2 is in jail for the past two years, which statement is recorded.Under these circumstances, the Superintendent of Central Prison concerned, is directed to act accordingly.With the above modification in conviction and sentence, the criminal appeal is disposed of.Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, DharmapuriThe Inspector of Police, Pennagaram, Dharmapuri DistrictThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
773,709
The prosecution story is that the appellant and Ramkisan (P. W. 3) husband of Smt. Narbadibai (P. W. 1) were neighbours in Bala-ganj ward of Hoshangabad town.There were intimate relations between the two families.The appellant was a friend of Puran, younger brother of Ramkisan (P. W. 3), and, therefore, Smt. Narbadibai treated him as her brother-in-law and used to call him 'Dewar'.There was no purdah observed and the appellant used to come to the family house of Ramkisan.Ramkisan was married in early childhood and was living with his father and brothers.It transpires that Puran, the younger brother of Ramkisan, did not pull on well either with Ramkisau or with Smt. Narbadibai.He was quarrelsome and hot-tempered.He had turned both of them out of the house.Ramkisan was a conductor in a private Bus Service.On 8-8-1957 he had gone on duty, out of Hoshangabad to Khandwa.On that day, Puran abused Smt. Narbadibai, cast aspersions on her character and turned her out.She had a child, aged 11 or 12 months, whom she took with her and left the house.She straightway went to the Police Station where she made a report (Ex. P-5), at about 4-30 p. m. regarding the circumstances in which she left the house and stated in this report that she was going to her sister, Rampyari, who resides in the Madarwada ward of the town.Now, this report is important, and I snail deal with it later.It may be mentioned here that in this report she had also stated that her husband was not treating her well.That was the day of Tajiya celebrations in the town.Instead of going to her sister, she, however, went to Rudni and her story is that she was kidnapped or abducted by the appellant Shaikh Gafoor along with one Ismail who has not been prosecuted in this case.Both, according to her story, threatened her at Budni and committed rape on her.JUDGMENT B.K. Chaturvedi, J.The appellant Shaikh Gafoor, aged 19 years, resident of Hoshangabad, has been convitced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hosh-angabad, of two offences (1) under Section 366 and (2) under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment on each count.The two sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.The offence under Section 366 has been tried by the Jury and the learned Judge agreed with the verdict of the Jury that the appellant is guilty for having abducted Smt. Narbadibai (P. W. 1) on 8-8-1957 at Hoshangabad to force or seduce her to illicit intercourse.Then they took her to Bhelsa and, thereafter, from Bhelsa she was brought to Burhanpur where she was kept in a house and both of them again committed rape on her.Ismail, it appears, left soon after, and, she remained, according to her statement, in a house which belonged to one Ramdayal (P.W. 6) and which was taken on rent by the appellant for her.Her story, then, is that every day the appellant committed rape on her.The appellant denied these allegations and pleaded not guilty.His defence is that he did not abduct Smt. Narbadibai, but that three days befort the Tajiya celebrations he was already in Burhanpur and that it was only by chance that he met Smt. Narbadibai who wanted some shelter and a house for her and so he got it arranged through Ramdayal (P W. 6).Thereafter, the appellant says, he informed his father Gulab to inform Ramkisan and others of the whereabouts of Smt. Narbadibai.Now, it is important here to note that though a report had been made at Hoshangabad Police Station about her missing and though the party had come on 18th and left on 19th August 1957, no report was made in Burhanpur where, it is alleged, she was rescued from the clutches of the appellant.It would thus be seen that Smt. Narbadibai left Hoshangabad on 8-8-1957 in the evening and, according to the prosecution, left Budhni on 9-8-1957 in the evening reaching Bhelsa late in the night and left Bhelsa on 10-8-1957, at about 9 or 10 a.m. and reached Burhanpur on the same date in the afternoon or in the evening.On 11-8-1957 a house was taken on rent for her and till 18-8-1957 she remained in that house till the party came from Hoshangabad and rescued her.It is admitted by the prosecution that the party stayed at Burhanpur on 18th and 19th August 19571 and came back to Hoshangabad on the evening of 20th August 1957, It is significant that no report was made in Burhanpur either on 18th or on 19th August 1957 and even after reaching Hoshangabad in the evening of 20-8-1957 no report was lodged there.A report (Ex. P-1) was lodged at Hoshangabad Police Station in the evening on 21-8-1957, at about 7-30 p.m.The learned Additional Sessions Judge himself has not taken the view that Smt. Narbadibai is below 18 years.Her mother, who is alive, could have said definitely about the age of Smt. Narbadibai, but she was not produced as a prosecution witness.An appeal against a Jury's verdict can lie only on a question of law.Shri Syed Abroad, learned counsel for the appellant, has pointed out certain inaccuracies in the charge to the Jury and several misdirections, I have read the charge to the Jury which on certain points is quite elaborate; but it appears to me that the learned Judge has not taken into consideration the explanation of the appellant.It was the Judge's duty to place before the Jury, in a coherent manner the explanation put forward by the appellant and which could be supported with the deficiencies in the prosecution evidence in the case.The learned Judge, however, has entirely ignored this aspect of the case.In para 15 of the Charge to the Jury the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed as follows :A question was put to the Investigating Officer, Durga Prasad Verma, who appeared as a Court Witness No. 1: "Whether you had proof against Ismail ?" This question was disallowed by the Court.No reasons were recorded for disallowing it.Before going to Budni, the prosecutrix had lodged this report in the police station.It mentions as stating that both the husband and her Dewar (husband's brother) had cast aspersions against her character and that on this basis they had turned her out of the house and did not give maintenance.In the circumstances of the case, I do not propose to send the case for re-trial.I would now take up the case of the appellant under Section 376; Indian Penal Code.The relations between the prosecutrix and the appellant cannot be said to be but very intimate and cordial.
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
773,856
ORDER Dixit, J.It appears that the applicants were challaned in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chachoda, for an offence under Section 147, I.P.C. The trial Magistrate did not find the charge under Section 147 prima facie established.He accordingly charged the accused for an offence under Section 323 I.P.C. At the end of the trial the learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-.The accused persons filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge of Guna who was of the opinion that an offence under Section 323, I.P.C. being exclusively triable by the Panchayat Court under the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Vidhan Samvat 2006 (Act No. 58 of 1949), the trial and the conviction of the applicants by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate were illegal.
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,512,328
The prosecution case is that, on 29th April, 2014 the firstinformant felt gas odour from room No.1 situated in chawl whereshe was residing.The room was locked.Altaf Yusuf Shaikh, who hadlocked the room was called.He opened lock of door with the help ofkey and entered into the room.The informant and her nephew wasstanding at the door.Altaf was doing something by bending over thecylinder and at that time explosion occurred.Nephew of theinformant caught fire.He was shifted to hospital.Informant and herson sustained burn injury.He deposed that, Altafopened the door and went inside the room.He also went insidealong with Altaf.There was a blast.He sustained injury.He did notobtain signature of doctor at the end of the statement.Dyingdeclaration is not in his handwriting.This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of appeal preferred by applicant challenging the Judgment and order dated 30 th August, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Sangli.The applicant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-II of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Ten years and to payManish Digitally signed by Manish S. ThatteS. Thatte fine of Rs. 25,000/- He is also convicted for the offences punishable Date: 2020.10.29 15:05:51 +0530 Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 7 1-IA-507-2019 in Appeal No.1317-2019.docunder Sections 285, 286, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code.Theapplicant is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Six months for theoffences punishable under Sections 285, 286 and 337 of Indian PenalCode on each count.He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor Two years for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IndianPenal Code.Other persons in the vicinity also sufferedburn injuries.Nephew of the deceased, Altaf Shaikh and oneMubarak died due to burn injuries.First Information Report (Forshort "FIR") was registered.Altaf was impleaded as Accused No.3, although he was dead.Accused No.4 - Sunil Kolpe died, during the pendency of proceedingsand the case against him had abated.Theaccused No.1 with the help of co-accused was conducting business bystoring gas cylinders in the chawl.Gas was provided to Rickshawdrivers illegally.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, theapplicant was on bail during trial.He has not misused the facility ofbail.He has been taken in custody on conviction.For last one andhalf year he is in custody.The applicant was not present at the timeof incident.The incidentof gas explosion had occurred, when Altaf tried to check the leakageof gas cylinder.Knowledge which is required to constitute the offenceunder Section 304-(II) cannot be attributed to the applicant, as theincident had occurred suddenly when accused No.3 tried to checkleakage of gas.There is no evidence to show that, the applicant wasconducting business in the chawl by storing gas cylinder.There is noevidence to establish that the applicant was conducting illegalbusiness.The prosecution is relying on dying declaration of twowitnesses, which suffers from serious infirmities.Learned APP submitted that the applicant wasconducting business in the chawl premises by storing gas cylinders.Three persons died in the incident and others were injured.The applicant ought to have knowledge that, storageof gas cylinders in the residential premises may cause such mishap.The applicant was on bail during the trial.The mother ofapplicant has submitted affidavit dated 28 th October, 2020 statingthat, during the pendency of trial, the applicant was on bail and hehas been taken in custody after conviction.The prosecution was initiated against five accused.Although,Altaf Shaikh died in the incident while operating gas cylinder, he wasimpleaded as accused No.3 by showing him as deceased.AccusedNo.4 died during pendency of trial.Accused No.5 was owner ofchawl.Accused No.5 and accused No. 2 were acquitted.The trialCourt had observed that, the applicant was in possession of the roomowned by accused No.5 and accused No.3 was working with theapplicant.The trial Courtfurther observed that, the accused No.1 had knowledge of storingand having the stock of LPG may any time result into explosioncausing injury and lost of life.Though accused No.2 had no intentionto kill the victims, he had sufficient knowledge and awareness ofSajakali Jamadar 4 of 7 1-IA-507-2019 in Appeal No.1317-2019.docconsequences of his act.The applicant was not present at the place ofincident when the explosion had occurred.The incident did notoccur while conducting any act filling the gas in the vehicle.Itappears that, the incident had occurred due to gas cylinder leakage.There is serious challenge to the applicability of Section 304(II) ofIPC.PW-2 has stated that, accused No.5 is the owner of chawl.Theincident had occurred when Altaf was doing something by bendingover the cylinder.Police took her signature on ready complaint whichwas prepared by them.She has not referred to role of applicant.PW-4 is mother of Altaf Shaikh.He was doingbusiness of selling LPG gas.PW-6recorded dying declaration of Altaf Shaikh.According to him, Altafdisclosed that, Abdul had taken room on rent and selling LPG gascylinders.He was employed by Abdul.He opened room and tried toremove the regulator of gas cylinder, at that time there was a blast.He sustained burn injuries.There is no endorsement on dyingdeclaration that, he explained the contents of statement to Altaf inHindi.Thumb impression of Altaf was not attested.There is noreason for him to explain the contents of statement to Altaf in Urdu.PW-8 recordedSajakali Jamadar 5 of 7 1-IA-507-2019 in Appeal No.1317-2019.docdying declaration of Mubarak Bagwan.From the dying declaration itcannot transpire that who has written it.Considering the aforesaid circumstances, sentence ofimprisonment can be suspended.Hence, I pass the following order.Judgment and order order dated 30th August, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 254 of 2014 is suspended, during the pendency of appeal preferred by the applicant.ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.iii) The applicant is permitted to deposit cash security in the sum of Rs.25,000/- for a period of twelve weeks in lieu of surety.iv) The applicant shall report concerned police station once in month on every first Saturday of the month between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. till further order.v) Application stands disposed of accordingly.Sajakali Jamadar 6 of 7 1-IA-507-2019 in Appeal No.1317-2019.docThis order will be digitally signed by the PrivateSecretary/Personal Assistant of this Court.All concerned will act onproduction by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,518,049
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceeding arising out from the Crime No.48/2020 registered at Police Station Cantt.District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354(D), 506 of the IPC.Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this petition are that on 14.02.2020 prosecutrix lodged a written report at Police Station Cannt, Distric Jabalpur which reads as under:-eSa Fkkuk dsaV es iz/kku vkj- ds in ij inLFk gwaA vkt fnukad 14@02@2020 dks izkfFkZ;k eatw ukenso ifr fodkl ukenso mez 38 o"kZ fu- lathouh uxj] x<+k gky eqdke& C/O 'k'khckyk tuksfl;k] Hkezdh ckbZikl fMiks ds lkeus] 'kgiqjk fHkVkSuh tcyiqj eks-She is a married woman.She does not want to talk to him.ua- 9424806092] dh Fkkuk mifLFkr vkdkj ,d fyf[kr vkosnu i= Jheku Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn; ds uke ls is'k dh ftlesa eukst disZ }kjk izkfFkZ;k dks cqjh fu;r ls gkFk idM+ dj yxkrkj ihNk djuk ,oa tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsuk ys[k gksuk ik;k x;kA etewu f'kdk;r ij ls vkjksih ds fo:) /kkjk 354] 354 ?k] 506 Hkknfo dk vijk/k ik;s tkus ls vijk/k iathc) dj foospuk esa fy;k x;kA udy vkosnu i= tSy gSA izfr] Fkkuk izHkkjh] dsaV Fkkuk tcyiqj fo"k;& eukst disZ }kjk cqjh fu;r ls gkFk idM+ dj tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsukA egksn;] eSa eatw ukenso ifr fodkl ukenso mez 38 o"kZ fu- lathouh uxj] x<+k gky eqdke&C/O 'k'khckyk tuksfl;k Hkezdh ckbZikl fMiks ds lkeus] 'kgiqjk fHkVkSuh tcyiqj dh jgus okyh gwaA eSa 29 tuojh 2018 dks SBI Life Insurance o/kkZ esa vkj-oh-ukdk esa ,MokbZtj ds in ij ukSdjh djus yxh FkhA D;ksafd esjs ifr o/kkZ esa gh LVhy IykaV esa vflLVsaV eSaustj ds in inLFk gSA o/kkZ esa esjh eqykdkr czkap eSustj eukst disZ ls gqbZ] ftlus /khjs&/khjs eq>s cjxykuk pkyw dj fn;k gSa ,oa esjs lkFk ckrphr djus yxkA eq>s ijs'kku djuk pkyw dj fn;k gS] vkSj esjs ?kj vkuk tkuk pkyw dj fn;kA tc esjs ifr ugha jgrs Fks] esjs euk djus ij Hkh ;s esjs ?kj ds lkeus ls jkst pDdj yxkrk FkkA bldh otg ls esjs ifr vkSj eq>s dkQh ijs'kkfu;ksa dk lkeuk djuk iM+ jgk gSA eukst disZ eq>ij cqjh fu;r j[kus yxkA eSa eukst disZ dh gjdrksa ls rax vkdkj eSaus o"kZ 2019 esa ukSdjh NksM+dj viuh cgu ds ;gka fHkVkSuh vkdj jgus yxhA eSaus eukst disZ ls ckrphr djuk can dj fn;kA eSaus vius eksckby Qksu dh fle can dy yh ij eukst disZ dgha u dgha ls esjk uacj fudkydj ckrphr djus yxkA eSa eukst dkisZ ls rax vkdj vius lkjs eksckby Qksu ds uacj can dj fn;sA rc Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 2021.02.25 14:34:02 IST esjs ifjokj ds yksxksa dks Hkh ijs'kku djus yxkA esjs HkkbZ ,oa cgu us eukst disZ dks dkQh le>k;k fdarq ugha ekukA tc eSa o/kkZ esa jgrh Fkh rc ,d ckj eukst disZ us esjs ifr ds ij vVSd dj pqdk gSA fnukad 01 Qjojh 2020 dks eukst disZ eq>s <w<+rs esjh cgu 'kf'kckyk tuksfl;k ds ?kj igqap x;k tks esjh cgu us MkaV dj mls Hkxk fn;kA eukst disZ eq>s tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsus yxkA vkt fnukad 14@02@2020 dks fnu djhcu 12@30 ls 01@00 cts dh chp eSa gfjflag :ijkg dkyst esa vkfQl esa Fkh rHkh eukst disZ viuh czstk dkj ls dkyst ds vanj vk x;kA vkSj tc og vkfQl ds vanj vk x;k rc eSa vkfQl esa fdlh dks irk u pys blfy;s eSa mlds lkFk vkfQl ds ckgj vk xbZA rc eukst disZ cqjh fu;r ls esjk gkFk idM+dj eq>s xkM+h ds vanj cSBkus yxkA eSaus eukst disZ ls dgk fd eSa rqels ckr ugha djuk pkgrh gwa esjk ihNk er djksA eSa 'kknh'kqnk efgyk gwaA vkSj eukst disZ ugha ekuk rc eSa viuh cnukeh ds Mj ls fNidj Fkkus fjiksVZ djkus vkbZA fjiksVZ djrh gwa dk;Zokgh dh tk;sA fnukad 14@02@2020 izkfFkZ;k eatw ukenso 9424806092On that Police registered Crime No.48/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354(D), 506 of the IPC and investigated the matter and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the applicant before court.Being aggrieved from that applicant filed this petition to quash the criminal proceedings.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present applicant is posted as branch manager at SBI Life Insurance Company Limited branch Jalgaon.Prior to that in the year 2018 he was posted as branch manager SBI Life Insurance Company at Wardha.At that time, the complainant was also working in the said branch of the company.Since the complainant and the applicant were working in the same branch, they came into contact with each other and the love and affection started between them.Due to love relations with the complainant, the applicant also deposited the money in the account of complainant many times and till 24/10/ 2020, he had deposited Rs 1.5 Lakhs in the bank account of complainant.Even the complainant's husband knew about the love relation between applicant and complainant.He filed divorce petition against the applicant in which he also mentioned that the complainant had a relationship with the applicant.At that time the complainant used to go along with the applicant to her maternal house located at Jabalpur.Her mother, sister and brother used to insist the Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 2021.02.25 14:34:02 IST applicant marry the complainant.When the applicant did not pay heed to it and denied to marry her she lodged the false complaint against him.He further submitted that when the applicant's wife Pooja came to know about the relationship between the applicant and the complainant, she lodged a complainant under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act 2005 in the court of CJM Chandrapur district Chandrapur Maharashtra making the complainant a party.When the complainant came to know about this she asked the applicant's wife to remove her name from the complaint.When the complainant's wife refused, the complainant lodged this false report against the applicant.Hence, it is prayed that the criminal proceedings arising out from the Crime No.48/2020 registered at Police Station Cantt., District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354(D), 506 of the IPC be quashed.On that she came out from the office with the applicant thinking that nobody would know in the College.The applicant then caught hold of her hand with Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 2021.02.25 14:34:02 IST bad intentions and tried to make her sit inside the car.She told the accused not to follow her.But he did not consider it.On that, she had to lodge the report.From those allegations prima facie offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354(D), of the IPC are clearly made out against the applicant.Prosecutrix was a consenting party or she lodged a false complaint due to other reasons (as mentioned above in the arguments of the applicant) is the defence of the applicant which can not be considered at this stage, because it requires evidence to decide.So criminal proceedings arising out from the Crime No.48/2020 registered at Police Station Cantt.
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,521,488
Resultantly, they quarreled quite often between themselves.One such domestic quarrel which took place on 28.04.2000 compelled the deceased Smt Rajan to leave her house for her parents house.The Appellant shortly thereafter followed the deceased Rajan to the house of her parents.On arriving there the Appellant in the presence of her father Shri Nathi (PW4) and her brothers Shri Ramesh (PW11) and Shri Suresh (PW12) threatened the deceased.Out of said witnesses the testimony of the following witnesses being crucial to the case are particularly relied upon:-Shri Nathi (PW4) i.e. father of the victim Smt. Rajan deposed that there were differences between the Appellant and the deceased Smt Rajan with regard to the family issues and house construction.He further went on to say that on account of quarrel between the Appellant and his daughter, she arrived at his house on 28.04.2000 alongwith her children, who were shortly followed by the Appellant with an axe in his hand.He states in his deposition that after some heated exchange, tempers cooled down, whereupon both the Appellant and deceased returned to their house.He denied the suggestion that because DD entry no. 2A did not disclose the time recorded hence, it was fabricated.He, however, maintained that DD entry No. 2A was recorded in the morning.In the opinion of Dr.Ashok Jaiswal (PW1) the cause of death was asphyxia on account of manual strangulation; which, according to him, had occurred thirty six (36) hours prior to the date and time of the post mortem.The prosecution also examined both Investigating Officers i.e sub-Inspector Janaki Parsad (PW13) and Inspector, Prem Singh (PW14).Sub-Inspector Janaki Parsad (PW13) deposed that on receipt of DD no. 2A he alongwith Constable Lakhu Ram and Constable Manoj went to the crime scene where they found the dead body of Smt Rajan lying on the cot with head injury and bluish mark on neck with blood splattered on the floor below the cot.He also deposed that the Station House Officer (SHO), Inspector, Virender Kumar recorded the statement of Complainant Shri Nathi and sent the requisite information Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 13 of 29 alongwith Constable Manoj Kumar for registration of the case.He also deposed that a Photographer was also sent for who on arriving at the crime scene took the necessary photographs.In his deposition he stated that the samples of earth were lifted from the floor and it was sealed and seized.He further deposed that both the personal search of the accused as well as his disclosure statement were carried out in his presence and bear his signatures.He has further deposed that after the Post Mortem carried out on 01.05.2000, the body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased and that parcel containing the clothes of the deceased, as well as, blood sample of the deceased was sealed vide memo which is marked Ex.PW10/A and the same were deposited in Malkhana.He has also deposed that thereafter the investigation was handed over to the Inspector Prem Singh (PW14).He confirmed that both his signatures and that of the Appellant were taken on the personal search memo.Inspector Prem Singh (PW14) deposed that on 02.05.2008 he was posted at Police Station Kalyan Puri as Station House Officer and that he conducted the investigation thereon.He has also deposed to the effect that on 13.07.2000 he alongwith SI Mukesh Jain visited the site of the crime where he prepared rough notes, and measurement were taken by him alongwith SI Janaki Parsad (PW13).He further deposed that he collected the Post Mortem Report Ex.This is an Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to in short as Cr P C) against the judgment dated 26.2.2001 and sentence dated 26.2.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Shri R.L.Chugh, Karkardooma Court, Shahadra, Delhi (hereinafter Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 1 of 29 referred to in short as the 'Trial Court').The Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC) and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/-.In default of payment of fine, the Appellant is required to undergo a further simple imprisonment for one month.Before we deal with submissions made and issues raised in the Appeal it would be important to detail out the case set up by the prosecution.On 30.4.2000 police received information that one Smt Rajan wife of the Appellant i.e Ramesh alias Ramoo residing in House No. 3/322 Trilok Puri; Delhi (hereinafter referred to in short as the said premises) had been murdered.Based on the information received the duty officer concerned at Police Station Kalyan Puri recorded a daily diary entry (DD) no.26A. A copy of the said DD entry 26A was handed over to the sub-Inspector Janki Prasad for investigation.The sub- Inspector Janki Prasad alongwith two Constables reached the said premises where the Appellant was residing with his wife, Smt Rajan i.e the deceased.Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 2 of 29On receipt of information the concerned Station House Officer Inspector Shri Virender Kumar also reached the spot.There they found the dead body of the victim Smt Rajan wife of the Appellant.The body was found lying on a cot on the first floor of the said premises.A prima facie examination of the dead body revealed that the victim had sustained an injury on the head.Blood was found on the ground beneath the cot on which the body was found, on the same side towards which the head of the victim was rested.Bruises were also found on the neck of the deceased which had turned bluish.Based on the statement of the father of the deceased Smt Rajan, an FIR was registered on 30.4.2000 at about 9.30 am.The charge framed against the Appellant reads as follows:-"That on the night intervening 29/30-4-2000, at the roof of your H.No.3/322, Trilok Puri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kalyan Puri you committed murder by intentionally causing death of your wife Smt Rajan and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 302 IPC and within the cognizance of this court."Before the Trial Court the prosecution examined fifteen (15) witnesses, while the defense examined one (1) Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 3 of 29 witness.After recording the evidence of the various witnesses and upon perusal of the same and after hearing submissions of the counsel for the State, as well as, the Appellant the Trial Court came to the conclusion that based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution had been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant was guilty of the offence charged with and that there was no other hypothesis of the innocence of the Appellant/accused plausible.Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C has been preferred in this Court.In support of the Appeal the counsel for the Appellant Ms.(ii) To buttress the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the Appellant referred to the following contradictions and inconsistencies which, according to her would impact the final conclusion of guilt arrived at by the Trial Court:-(a) the father of the victim Smt Rajan i.e Nathi (PW4) has contradicted most of his deposition given in chief when cross examined by the counsel for the defence, in particular, his denial of the alleged threat met out by the Appellant/accused on 28.4.2000 to the effect "YA TO RAJAN KO SAMJHA Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 5 of 29 DO VARNA ME USE KHATAM KAR DOONGA";(b) daily diary (DD) Entry No.2A which was preceded by daily diary (DD) Entry No.26A is ante timed and fabricated for the reason that it is neither in seriatum nor is the time recorded in the said daily diary (DD) entry No. 2A. Resultantly, it is not known as to whether DD No.2A was recorded in the morning at 7.05 am as per the prosecutions case or during later part of the day, and;PW14/2A clearly opines that no blood was found on the axe which allegedly is the weapon which was used in inflicting head injury on the victim;(iii) there was no motive established for murder of the deceased Smt. Rajan by the Appellant nor was the Appellant present on the roof of the premises where the murder of the deceased took place.In support of her submission the learned counsel for the Appellant placed reliance also on the testimony of Smt Daya (DW1), the sister-in-law of the Appellant.The particular part of the testimony Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 6 of 29 which is relied upon is where Smt Daya (DW1) has stated to have said that the Appellant and deceased occasionally had fights between themselves, as usually happens between a husband and wife; and also to her deposition to the effect that the Appellant alongwith her husband and herself was at the relevant time sleeping on the ground floor, while the victim Smt Rajan was sleeping alone on the roof of the said premises;It is alleged that the Appellant is stated to have uttered the following threat Ya to Rajan ko samjha do, nahi to me use khatam ker dunga' .It is the case of the prosecution that in the early hours of 30.04.2000 the Appellant and his wife, Smt Rajan were once again engaged in an altercation which resulted in the Appellant using an axe to inflict the injuries on the head of the victim.Smt Rajan was finally done to death by the manual strangulation by the Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 8 of 29 Appellant.The Prosecution with the permission of the Court, cross examined Shri Nathi, (PW4) wherein he deposed to the effect that there were differences between the deceased and the Accused / Appellant and specifically referred to the threat held out by the Appellant to the deceased Ya to Rajan ko samjha do, nahi to mai use khatam ker dunga'.The prosecution in order to establish its case relied upon the testimony of fifteen (15) witnesses.He also deposed that at about Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 9 of 29 7.00am in the morning, on 30.04.2000, he was informed by a neighbour of the Appellant, that the Appellant had murdered his daughter.He further deposed that he alongwith his wife and his sons Shri Suresh and Shri Ramesh went to the house of the Appellant where, on the roof of the house he saw his daughter lying dead on the cot with injury marks on her head and bruises on her neck, below the chin.The prosecution further relied upon the testimony of the brothers of deceased Shri Ramesh (PW11) and Shri Suresh (PW12) to establish that there were differences between the Appellant and his wife i.e deceased.The brothers also reiterated the fact that they received the information of the murder of their sister through a neighbour of the Appellant at about 7.00 am on 30.04.2000, whereupon they visited the said premises where they found the dead body of their sister lying on a cot with injury on her head and bluish mark on her neck below the chin and the blood splattered on the floor.In his Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 10 of 29 testimony HC Kashmiri Lal deposed that at about 6.30am in the morning he received a telephonic information that a murder had occurred at the said premises.This information was recorded by him as (DD) No.26A Ex.PW7/A, which was transmitted to sub- Inspector, Janaki Parsad who alongwith Constable Lakhu Ram and Constable Manoj proceeded to the place of occurrence of the incident.He further deposed that at about 7.05 am, the Appellant came to the Police Station holding an Axe and informed him that he had murdered his wife Smt. Rajan and that he had therefore, decided to surrender.In his deposition he further stated that after measuring the axe he sealed the same and handed over to Constable Surat Singh, while the accused / Appellant was taken into custody by Constable Kashmir Singh.This factum was recorded in DD No. 2A which is Ex.PW7/B. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that DD entry no. 2A was back dated or fabricated.He further deposed that upon surrender of Appellant at the Police Station, he informed the Station House Officer, Inspector Virender Kumar.He also Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 11 of 29 deposed that he was responsible for taking into custody the axe handed over by the Appellant.He denied the suggestion that the accused had not surrendered or not made a confessional statement to the Police or that the Appellant and his brother were brought to the Police Station by the Investigating Officer in connivance with the father of the deceased Shri Nathi (PW4).He categorically denied the fact that the axe was handed over by the father of the victim Nathi and the same was planted.The Post Mortem on the deceased was conducted by Dr. Ashok Jaiswal, (PW1) who proved the Post Mortem report which is marked as Ex.PW1/A. In his testimony he detailed out the fact there were external injuries, in particular, there was a wound on the head which on internal examination revealed "blood under the scalp tissue on frontal and right occipital Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 12 of 29 parietal region with contusion and depressed fracture of frontal bone over an area 3 x 2 inches......" He also deposed that the external injuries were ante mortem and at least four injury marks were caused with application of a blunt object.He deposed that abrasions were found below the chin; oval shaped bruise was found on the left side of the neck below the angle of mandible with abrasion on the right sub mandibular region.In his cross examination he affirmed the case of the prosecution that after completing the investigation on the spot, when he reached the Police Station he came to know that the Appellant had surrendered at the Police Station.He confirmed that the accused was thereafter arrested by the Investigating Officer.He has also deposed in his cross examination that the personal search of the Appellant was Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 14 of 29 conducted in his presence and that of the brother of the Appellant.He confirmed in his deposition that the said CFSL Report and case property were received back which are marked Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW14/B.The Appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P C admitted in response to the question that when in point of Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 15 of 29 time the Investigating Officer, sub-Inspector Janaki Parsad alongwith Constable Lakhu Ram and Constable Manoj visited the spot and they found the dead body of Smt Rajan on the first floor of the said house.The accused / Appellant thus admitted the fact that the body was lying on the first floor of the said premises.Having perused the evidence on record, to our mind, the essential ingredients of an offence of murder, though based on circumstantial evidence are clearly established.The circumstance which instigated the Appellant to commit the brutal murder is clearly established from the testimony of the father of the PW4 (i.e. Shri Nathi) and brothers Shri Ramesh (PW11) and Shri Suresh (PW12).The close scrutiny of the testimony of said witnesses clearly establishes the fact that:-(i) acrimony had set in, in the relationship, between the Appellant and his deceased wife, Smt Rajan(ii) proximate to the date and time of death, a quarrel took place between the Appellant and the deceased Smt Rajan, on 28.4.2000 which compelled Smt Rajan to visit her parental home(iii) on said date 28.4.2000 Appellant followed Smt Rajan with an axe in hand, to her parental home, where they quarreled once Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 16 of 29 again and after tempers had cooled down returned home.In order to examine whether or not there are any major variations or contradictions in Shri Nathi (PW4) deposition, his examination-in-chief, as well as, his cross-examination when confronted with his statement made under Section 161 of Cr P C was closely scrutinised.A close perusal of the deposition of Shri Nathi (PW4) in substance establishes that there were no material variations or inconsistency in his stand.It is however, a fact that in his cross examination, the witness Shri Nathi (PW4) when confronted with the statement made under Section 161 Cr P C, clearly stated that he had not told the police that the Appellant had met out the aforementioned specific threat i.e "Ya to Rajan ko samjha do, nahi to mai use khatam ker dung".He went on to say that these words were inserted by the Investigating Officer.He further deposed that he had wrongly affirmed the same when Learned Public Prosecutor had carried out his cross examination with the permission of the Court.The point to be noted is that he had, however, reiterated in the cross examination by the defence that the deceased alongwith the Appellant had come to his house with axe at 4.00 to 5.00 pm on 28.4.2000 and at that point of time, his sons Shri Ramesh and Shri Suresh were also Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 17 of 29 present in his house.He reiterated the fact, in his cross examination, that his daughter Rajan had come to his house on 28.04.2000 at about 4.00 - 5.00 pm after being involved in a quarrel with her husband.He flatly denied the suggestion made to him in the cross examination that because he was fed up of the quarrel between his daughter and the Appellant, and in order to teach the Appellant a lesson, he had concocted a story to falsely implicate the Appellant in the case, or that he had planted the axe in connivance with the Police to implicate the Appellant.To our mind the substratum of the testimony of Shri Nathi (PW4) remains unaltered which is further substantiated by the testimony of the brothers of the deceased Shri Ramesh and Shri Suresh.What seems to be clearly established is that there was a quarrel between the Appellant and his wife on 28.04.2000 Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 18 of 29 which resulted in the Appellant visiting the house of Shri Nathi (PW4).This version of the events of 28.04.2000 are corroborated by the testimony of sons of Shri Nathi, namely, Shri Ramesh (PW11) and Shri Suresh (PW12) being PW11 & PW12 respectively.As a matter of fact, even Smt. Daya (DW1) has also referred to differences between the Appellant with his wife, even though she had labeled them as those which were not out of the ordinary.The submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in the deposition of the star witness of the prosecution, Shri Nathi (PW4) is thus untenable, for the reason, as long as the core and the substratum of the deposition of the witness remains unaltered, it will have to be accepted.As noted above, in the instant case the essence of Shri Nathis (PW4) deposition, that is, that the Appellant and the deceased often quarreled; and as to what transpired on 28.4.2000 has been further corroborated by the deposition of Shri Ramesh (PW11) and Shri Suresh (PW12) leaves no doubt in our mind that no one else but the Appellant had the necessary motive to do away with Smt Rajan.The other submission of the learned counsel for Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 19 of 29 Appellant that the DD entry No. 2A Ex.PW7/B was not recorded in the morning as claimed by prosecution does not to our mind have much substance.The reason being that at some stage the events of the previous day had to be brought to a close and hence, the explanation of the prosecution that the entry for the next day, bore a different number would not by itself to our mind prove that it is fabricated.This bring us to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that since no blood was found on the axe as per the CFSL Report this is indicative of the fact that it was a planted.First and the foremost aspect to be noted is that it is no ones case that the deceased had not suffered injuries on her person or that the body of the deceased with injuries was not found lying on the cot on the roof of the said premises.The fact that the CFSL report did not indicate that there was blood on the axe, in our opinion, would not help the Appellant.The best that could be stated in favour of the Appellant is that perhaps the axe which was seized by the Police is not the object Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 20 of 29 which caused the injury on the head.Ashok Jaiswal (PW1) was due to asphyxia brought about by manual strangulation.Moving to the other submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that there was no motive established and that a domestic quarrel could not be a motive for the crime.It all depends as to how a person reacts in a given circumstance and it is he along who best knows his intention and motive to commit a crime and the extent thereof.Let us now examine the Appellants contention based Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2001 22 of 29 on the testimony of his sole witness Smt Daya (DW1), wife of his brother Shri Dharampal.Smt Daya (DW1) deposed inter alia that on the date of the incident Smt Rajan i.e deceased was sleeping alone, on the roof of the said premises, and that the Appellant alongwith her husband and herself were sleeping on the ground floor.The reason given for this unusual behaviour by Smt Daya (DW1) in her testimony was that, the deceased Smt Rajan slept on the roof because it was hot, while the others slept on the ground floor because there were mosquitoes on the roof and the fact that they had electricity available on that day.Smt Daya (DW1) further went on to say that at about 2.00 to 2.30 am in the morning of 30.04.2008, the Police came to their house and took away the Appellant.In his deposition PW7 has stated that he was on duty at the Police Station from the midnight of 29.4.2000 to 8.00 am on 30.04.2000, and that at 6.30 am on 30.04.2000 he received a call from a unknown person that one lady was murdered by her husband on the roof of the said premises.Head Constable Kashmiri Lal (PW7) was cross examined at length.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,527,256
This is first bail application of petitioners Jiwan and Balram under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in Crime No.277/2019 u/S 394 and 120-B/34 of IPC registered at Police Station-- Pachore District--Rajgarh.2. Allegation against both the petitioners is that they 'reikied' (RECCE) the way of the complainant, provided information to the perpetrators and facilitated them to commit robbery, in turn, some unknown miscreants robbed Rs.70,000/- from the complainant Anil, when after recovery, he was coming back to the bank to deposit the money.Recovery of cash Rs.3,500/- and Rs.4,000/- is effected from the petitioners respectively.Objection of the learned public prosecutor is that the petitioners have criminal record.Earlier three criminal cases bearing crime No.340/2008 under Section 294,323,506, 427 IPC, Crime No.237/2019 under Section 394,120-B, 34 IPC and Crime No.216/2019 under Section 394/34 IPC, have been registered against them.In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all three cases are made in the same fashion.In all those cases including the present case the petitioners have been impleaded only on the basis of memorandum statement of co- accused persons that they 'reikied' (RECCE) the victim and provided them information for committing robbery.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.38082/2019 (Jiwan and Balram Vs.State of M.P.) -1-Having regard to the aforesaid, I deem it proper to release the accused/petitioners on bail.Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that the petitioners Jiwan S/o Dhan Singh and Balram S/o Gissalal be released from custody on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) each with separate solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the Trial Court as and when required further subject to the following conditions :-(i) The petitioners shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments on frivolous grounds to protract the trial.;(ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade him from disclosing truth before the Court;(iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activity;
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,529,589
(Order of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu, J.) The petitioner is the Director of a registered public Trust known as "Prisoners Rights Forum, Chennai".According to him, the objects of the Trust are to create law awareness among the prisoners and to help them to enforce their human rights, Constitutional rights and the other legal rights.After raping the girl they administered poison (Chemical cow dung power mixed with milk) in an endeavour to kill them.Since the attempt failed, they took them to PAP canal at Sarkar Pudur in Pollachi Taluk and pushed them into the canal.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja.Manoharan was also arrested.Both were taken to the Court for being produced for judicial remand.When they were taken to the CMC hospital, the general public enraged over the above heinous crime allegedly committed by Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja and Mr.Manoharan, pelted stones and rotten eggs at them.Manoharan to the police.While in custody, they were examined in the presence of witnesses.It is alleged that, in their confession statement, they admitted administering poison to the children.They also disclosed the place where they concealed the bottle in which they mixed chemical cow dung powder with milk.They were kept in B-9 Saravanampatty Police Station during night hours.On 09.11.2010 at 5.00 am they were taken out of the lock up rooms of B-9 Saravanampatty Police Station for further investigation.The investigating officer decided to take the accused to Pollachi for investigation at the early hours to avoid public assembly and outcry, danger to the accused and to have a free and fair investigation keeping in view of the public outcry at CMC Hospital, Coimbatore.The accused were taken in two different vans.Manoharan was escorted in a van guarded by the investigating officer and his party.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja, was escorted by Mr.Annadurai, Inspector of Police and his party in another van.Both the police parties were taking the accused to Ankalakurichi village for further investigation in respect of the occurrence place.There were also other police constables accompanying them.When both the vans escorted by police were going along the Pollachi Road, the railway gate at Eachanari was found closed.So they took a different route via Saradha Mill Road at Pothanur to Pollachi.The van escorting Manoharan went ahead of the vehicle escorting Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja.When the police party escorting Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja crossed Pothanur and was going near the Corporation Compost Yard, Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja suddenly snatched the revolver from the Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Jothi and threatened the van driver and the escort officer with the revolver.He shouted at them to turn the van towards Palakkad which is his native place, failing which, he would shoot them dead.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja to drop the gun, Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja shouted at the police by saying "You police dogs, I have lost my peace for the past one week, all of you better die" and he fired two rounds with the said revolver and as a result the Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Jothi sustained a bullet injury on his left hand and the Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Muthumalai sustained a bullet injury over the left side of his abdomen.When Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja attempted to shoot Mr.Jothi with the revolver once again, the Inspector of Police Mr.Annadurai warned him to drop the revolver.But Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja, without heeding to the warning, once again attempted to shoot at Mr.Jothi, at which point, Mr.Annadurai, Inspector of Police apprehended danger to the lives of the police personnel, fired one bullet from his pistol at Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja and the Sub Inspector of Police, Mr.Muthumalai fired two bullets with his pistol at Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja to disarm him and prevent him from further shooting and causing injuries to the escort party.In the course of this occurrence, Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja sustained three bullet injuries and fell down.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja and the Sub Inspectors of Police Mr.Jothi and Mr.The Medical Officer received the injured at about 6.00 a.m and declared Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja dead.Jothi and Mr.According to him, there appeared a news item in "The Hindu" daily on 10.11.2010, which reads as follows:"On Monday (November 8), the police took custody of the accused for investigation.On Tuesday morning, the police took both of them from the Saravanampatty police station at 5.30 a.m. for identification of the places where they committed the offence.They were escorted by Inspectors Kanagasabapathy and Annadurai besides Sub-Inspectors Muthumalai and Jothi.Manoharan was taken in the first vehicle and Mohanraj in the second vehicle.When the vehicle was crossing the Vellalore compost yard of the Coimbatore Corporation on the Podanur-Vellalore road, Mohanraj allegedly snatched the pistol of Sub-Inspector Jothi and placed it at the head of the Head Constable-cum-driver Annadurai and ordered him to drive towards Kerala.When the driver failed to stop, he opened fire in which Jothi sustained an injury in his right arm, while a bullet pierced the stomach of Sub-Inspector Muthumalai.Immediately, Muthumalai fired two shots in the head of the accused and Inspector Annadurai opened fire at the chest causing his instant death.City Police Commissioner C.Sylendra Babu said the police opened fire to prevent the accused from killing the police personnel and to foil his attempt to escape from custody."On going through the said news item, according to the petitioner, he suspected some foul play.But the Commissioner of Police, gave interview to the press that the police opened fire and killed the accused Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja with a view to prevent him from killing the police personnel and to foil his attempt to escape from the custody of the police.According to the petitioner, in respect of the killing of Mr.Such case shall invariably be investigated by State CB-CID.In this regard, the petitioner forwarded a complaint on 09.11.2010, to the respondents 1 to 3 but no case has been registered so far against the police personnel involved in the killing of Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja, is his grievance.Therefore, he has come up with this writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to register a case under Section 302 I.P.C. against the respondents 5 and 6 who are involved in the killing of Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja S/o.Radhakrishnan and to entrust the investigation of the said case to the C.B.I.The 4th respondent/Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore city has filed a detailed counter, wherein, he has stated, inter alia, that on 29.10.2010 at about 10.45 a.m. one Vijay Kumar Jain, a wholesale merchant in Textiles lodged a complaint with the B-8 Variety Hall Road Police Station alleging that his brother's children of tender age viz., Muskan (girl 10 years) and Rithik (boy 7 years) had been kidnapped while on their way to school.On the said complaint, a case was registered on the file of the B-8 Variety Hall Road Police Station in Crime No.1461/2010 under Section 363 IPC and the same was taken up for investigation immediately.During investigation, it came to light that both the children used to go to school in a call taxi in the name and style of "Suriya Call Taxi".The deceased in the present case, Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja was a driver in the said Call Taxi for quite some time and he used to take Muskan and Rithik in the said Call Taxi to the school for quite some time.In such a way, he became well acquainted to the children.Later on, his services were terminated by Suriya Call Taxi and therefore he did not continue to take the children to the school.It is further alleged in the counter that on 29.10.2010 at about 7.50 a.m. which was the usual time for the children to go to school, the deceased Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja came in a Maruti Omni Van bearing Reg.No.TN-37-BF-2796, stopped the said van near the residence of the above two children and asked the children to board the Omni Van to go to the school.Believing that Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja was taking them to school, both the children got into the van, Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja drove the Omni Van along with the children to Pollachi, where he picked up his associate Mr.Manoharan as well.They took the children to an isolated Mango grove at Manjanaikanoor Road in Thuraiyur village in Pollachi Taluk.At that place, both the accused raped Muskan brutally one after the another.The children perished in the running water.In connection with the said case, according to the Commissioner of Police, Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja was arrested at 9.45 p.m. on the same day.The case was altered to one under Sections 364(A), 376, 302 and 201 IPC.On 31.10.2010, the other accused Mr.With great difficulty, the police personnel managed to safeguard them from such attack.Later on, during the course of investigation, the dead bodies were recovered and lot of other incriminating evidences were also collected (we refrain to mention about the details regarding the material objects collected during the investigation of the case as they are not required for the purpose of disposing this writ petition).After having been produced before the Court on 08.11.2010, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.When the Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Inspector of Police Mr.Annadurai snatched the revolver from Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja and thereafter the police rushed to the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore to save the lives of Mr.Muthumalai were admitted as inpatients and after initial treatment, they were shifted to the Kovai Medical Centre and Hospitals, Coimbatore.On the complaint lodged by Mr.Annadurai, Inspector of Police, a case was registered in Crime No.1523 of 2010 under Sections 224 r/w 511, 353, 332, 506(ii), 307 IPC and Section 25(B)(1)(a) of the Arms Act r/w Section 176 (1)(A) Cr.P.C. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central, Coimbatore City took up the case for investigation.The F.I.R. was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate Court-VII, Coimbatore for enquiry under Section 176(A) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate also enquired and submitted a report.The body was forwarded for post-mortem after inquest.The investigation was later on transferred to the CB-CID and the same was under investigation.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja the police officers acted with utmost restraint in the face of grave danger to their lives.Even though they were injured through his gunshot fire, they warned him and even tried to disarm him.Only upon imminent danger to their lives and to the lives of their subordinates, did they resort to restricted fire on self defence.He would further state that the guidelines of the National Human Rights Commission were not violated.Thus, the Commissioner of Police contended that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.Annadurai, Inspector of Police, who was then the Inspector of Police B-2, R.S.Puram Police Station, Coimbatore who was involved in the above occurrence has filed a counter in tune with the counter filed by the Commissioner of Police.Therefore, we do not propose to extract the details of his counter.Muthumalai, the Sub Inspector of Police who was also involved in the said occurrence has filed a separate counter, in which also he has reiterated what the Commissioner of Police has stated in his counter.Muthumalai are in sum and substance similar to the counter filed by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore.On the orders of the Honourable The Chief Justice, this writ petition has been listed before this Bench.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 and also perused the records carefully.Thus, according to him, absolutely there is no merit in this writ petition and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed.We have considered the above submissions.As we have narrated the facts as projected by the rival parties, there is no dispute that Mr.Mohanakrishnan @ Mohanraj @ Raja was in police custody and while in police custody, he was shot dead by two police officers by name Mr.Annadurai and Mr.Muthumalai, who are the respondents 5 and 6 respectively in this writ petition.It is on record that after the occurrence was over, the deceased as well as the two injured police officers were rushed to the Government hospital where the Doctor, after examining the deceased, declared him dead.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,315,343
ORDER Rajeev Gupta, J.Appellant-State has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12-12-1987, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, in ST No. 48/85, whereby all the 4 respondents-accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC.This incident of violence which had taken place on 8-7-1984, gave rise to the registration of two separate cases, at Police Station Ahamadpur, Distt.The case at Crime No. 53/84 was registered on the report of one Kashiram against as many as 5 persons, including the 4 respondents for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147/148 and 307/149, IPC for causing injuries to Madan Singh, Kashiram, Dilip Singh and Karan Singh.The other case at Crime No. 54/84 was registered on the report of respondent-Jai Singh against as many as 14 persons, including Madan Singh, Kashiram, Dilip Singh and Karan Singh, for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147/148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC, for the commission of murder of Chandan Singh, father of the respondents Ramgopal and Nawal Singh, and for causing injuries to respondents Chand Singh, Ramgopal and Nawal Singh.The respondents-accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded right of self-defence.At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, whereas the accused persons examined 3 witnesses in their defence.The trial Court, on considering the evidence of (D.W. 1) Dr. G.T. Khemchandani and (D.W. 2) Dr. S.K. Mishra, found it proved that Chandan Singh had sustained as many as 12 external injuries in the same incident and died a homicidal death and accused Chand Singh and Ram Gopal had sustained grievous injuries.On considering the evidence of the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution at the trial, the trial Court found that these eye-witnesses have failed in giving satisfactory explanation about the injuries sustained by Chandan Singh, Ramgopal, Nawal Singh and Chand Singh and on the above findings, the trial Court recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal.Shri Ranbir Singh, the learned Panel Lawyer vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses (P.W. 1) Kashiram, (P.W. 2) Madan Singh, (P.W. 3) Karan Singh and (P.W. 4) Dilip Singh, only on the ground that they have not given satisfactory explanation about the injuries sustained by the accused persons and Chandan Singh.The fact that Chandan Singh had sustained as many as 12 external injuries on 8-7-1984, and died homicidal death stands proved from the evidence of (D.W. 1) Dr. G.T. Khemchandani.(D.W. 2) Dr. S.K. Mishra proved that accused Chand Singh and Ram Gopal had sustained as many as 7 external injuries each whereas third accused Nawal Singh had sustained 3 external injuries, Mewa Bai, mother of respondent No. 1 Jai Singh was also found to have sustained 4 external injuries.The evidence of (D.W. 1) Dr. G.T. Khemchandani further establishes that accused Chand Singh had also sustained fracture of his skull bone and humerous bone.Another accused Ram Gopal was also found to have sustained fractures of his left metacarpal bone and left tibia.(P.W. 1) Kashiram, (P.W. 2) Madan Singh, (P.W. 3) Karan Singh and (P.W. 4) Dilip Singh in their deposition in the Court have not given any acceptable explanation in regard to the above mentioned multiple injuries, some of whom were serious in nature, sustained by the accused persons.The trial Court also took note of the fact that though there were other independent eye-witnesses of the incident but none of them was examined by the prosecution.On a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, we are satisfied that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and in recording the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondents-accused persons.The view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or impossible one.In this view of the matter, we do not find any scope for interference in this appeal against acquittal.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal against acquittal fails and is hereby dismissed.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,541,228
(05.10.2009) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 03.01.1995 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in S.T. No.119/1993, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 318 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 year.By this judgment only, the appellant was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 109 whereas the co- accused namely Sheikh Mehboob was acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of acquittal.The prosecution case, in short, is that on 27.06.1992 at about 6 p.m., dead body of a newly born child was found floating in a Well, situated near the house of Dandu Kahar in village Chhaigaon Makhan.Inquiry into the merg (death case), registered upon information given by Deepak (PW8) revealed that -(a) the child was born out of an illicit relationship between the appellant and Sheikh Mehboob and :: 2 ::Ikhtiyar Bi (PW7), mother of the appellant, did not corroborate the prosecution version.She even denied the factum of the appellant's pregnancy.However, Dr. Smt. Raksha Sharma (PW1), who had the occasion to examine her on 10.07.1992, categorically opined that the appellant had delivered a full term child within 14 to 21 days.In the cross-examination, she further explained that it was not a case of abortion.The physical features described by the lady doctor in the report (Ex.P-1) were sufficient to fortify her conclusion.Deepak (PW8) reaffirmed the fact that it was he who had informed the police about the dead body.His statement drew support from the testimony of the Investigating Officer namely L.S. Chauhan (PW9), who further deposed that after inquest proceedings, body of the dead child was sent for post-mortem.In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon Dr. S.K. Gupta (PW2), cause of the child's death was asphyxia on account of compression over chest, abdomen & skull and not due to drowning.Placing implicit reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in Emperor v. Kuppammal A.I.R. 1941 Madras 1, learned Senior Counsel has strenuously contended that guilt of the appellant could not be held to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in absence of cogent evidence as to (i) the identity of the dead child as her child and (ii) her presence near or about the well.However, these facts, though relevant to the charge of murder of a new born infant, were not required to be established in a trial relating to the offence of concealment of birth by secret disposal of child's dead :: 3 ::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.59/1995 body.If those facts are within the special knowledge of the accused then he has to prove them.In this view of the matter, the non- explanation of the circumstances leading to removal of a newly born child from appellant's care and custody was the strongest possible circumstance to reject the plea of false implication (Gajendra Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC 1703 referred to).Further, it was not her defence that custody of the child was given to the co- accused for his nurturing and upbringing.For these reasons, the conviction in question deserves to be maintained as well-merited.The offence was committed at the time when the appellant was a young unmarried girl aged about 18 years.Taking into consideration the social impact of the crime and other relevant circumstances including that a considerable period of nearly 17 years has already elapsed thereafter, interests of justice would be met that if she is released on probation.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.Appellant Fareeda is directed to remain present for the purpose in the trial Court at Khandwa on 03.12.2009 at 11 a.m. positively.Appeal partly allowed .
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,541,961
Before the trial Court, in the main case, on behalf of the Respondent/Prosecution, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked.On the side of the Appellant/Accused, no one was examined as a witness and no exhibits were marked.14. P.W.1 (in his cross-examination) had stated that he does not remember that in his R.D.O. Enquiry, he had mentioned that the Accused was keeping well of his daughter.Further, he had added that her daughter had not addressed any letter to him on the aspect of demand of dowry by the Accused.15. P.W.2, in his evidence had stated that the deceased Sivasankari is his elder sister's daughter, and the Accused is her husband, and that on 18.05.2011, at 12 'O' clock in the night, he received an information that his sister's daughter had expired and he saw in the house of the Appellant/Accused that Sivasankari was kept lying on the bench, and he went to the Harithuvaramangalam Police Station, Valangaiman, after taking P.W.1 (Dhanabalan), his nephew and gave a complaint, stating that the Accused used to cause harassment/torture by frequently demanding the money, saying that the 'Jewels' which were given at the time of marriage were not enough, and, he used to leave Sivasankari in his house and that the Accused more often used to harass Sivasankari, because of the reason that, she had 'No Issues' and that, he was examined by R.D.O. and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Papanasam.16. P.W.3, in his evidence had proceeded to state that the deceased/Sivasankari was his brother's daughter, and that, the Accused was her husband, and that, on 18.05.2011 during night time, he received a phone call that Sivasankari had died and he along with his brother/P.W.1 went and saw Sivasankari kept lying on the bench.Thereafter, he along with his brother went to the Harithuvaramangalam Police Station, Valangaiman, and gave a Complaint.Furthermore, it is the evidence of P.W.3 that the Appellant/Accused used to create trouble/problem with Sivasankari and would leave her in the house and they used to effect a compromise and send them back and that his brother's son left Sivasankari in her house and one week later, he received an information that the said Sivasankari had expired, and he was examined by the Police.18. P.W.4, in her evidence had stated that the deceased/Sivasankari was her sister, and P.W.1 was her father and P.W.2 her husband, and that, the Accused is her sister's husband, and further that the Accused was hailing from Veeranam Village and her sister was given in marriage to the Accused on 11.03.2010, and that her sister/Sivasankari (since deceased) informed that the Accused harassed and scolded her, stating that she had no issues and during the month of April, the Appellant's brother son dropped Sivasankari in her house and that her, sister would give a telephone call to the Accused, and make enquiry with him, but the Accused would not enquire about her sister in that fashion and also, he would not speak of her in a proper manner.19. P.W.4 adds in her evidence that, when she enquired her sister/Sivasankari separately, she informed that the Accused was often scolding and she used to say that she would not go to the Accused's house any more and through her brother, Sivabalagurunathan, her sister/Sivasankari was sent to the Accused' house and after 10 days, on 18th date, night, through a phone message, they came to know that Sivasankari had committed suicide by 'hanging'.Further, they went and saw her sister kept lying on a bench and the right cheek and ear portion of her sister were injured and hear stud was broken and she was examined by the Police.20. P.W.5 (the brother of the deceased) in his evidence had stated that on 18.05.2011, at about 11.00 p.m. an information was received by him to the effect that his sister had died and they went to the house of the Accused and that, they found the deceased lying on the bench, and they lodged a complaint before the Police, and 10 days before the occurrence, the Accused's had left the deceased in the house for the reason that she had 'no issues' and that he (P.W.5) took his sister for treatment at Mannargudi Government Hospital, and thereafter, left his sister at the Accused's house, after 7, 8 days later, his sister/Sivasankari phoned to him and stated that the Accused was scolding and beating her on account of 'no issues', to which, P.W.5 replied that he was having work and that he would come along with his father after two days.21. P.W.5 (in his cross-examination) had stated that it was correct to state that at the time of inspecting the occurrence house, the entrance door, windows were broken and only after breaking the door, since inside a lock was put and suicide was committed, and that he had examined the witness separately.22. P.W.6 (the elder brother of the Accused) in his evidence had stated that on the date of the complaint, Temple Festival has been conducted, and he went for that purpose, and on coming to know that Sivasankar died, came to the house and saw her, in a hanging condition, and later, after breaking the door and the windows they went inside and after severing the suicidal knot, they kept Sivasankari down and gave information to Sivasankari's house over phone and that he was examined by the Police.24. P.W.8 (Assistant Surgeon), in his evidence had stated that, at present, he is serving as Assistant Doctor at Valagaiman Hospital and that on 19.05.2011, when he was on duty, one Rajendran of Valangaimaan Circle, Veeranam Village asked for the conduct of Post-Mortem of Iyapan's wife, Sivasankari, who committed suicide (By Hanging), and also sought for sending the inner parts of the body to the Forensic Science Examination and afternoon at 1.40 p.m. the Post-Mortem was conducted in the presence of R.D.O. Tiruvarur, and that, the deceased's face was seen swelling, in the nose, blood was oozing out; in the mouth, saliva was in a dropping state and her mouth was slightly in a open state, and on the right side portion of the neck, in the slanting portion, there was a deep blood clot, measuring 4 centimeter, caused due to the pressure caused by the knot of the saree, and the injury was not in seen in full, but it was only on the right side above the neck above, in slanting portion, and the other parts, like hands, legs, chest and in private parts, there were no blood injury or a nail's scratch and the palms were in open condition and that the stools came out.It is the evidence of P.W.8 that he gave the Post-Mortem Report, Ex.P.2 and Viscera Report, Ex.The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Vellore.The Superintendent, Central Prison at Tiruchirapalli.The Appellant/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court, (as an aggrieved person) as against the judgment, dated 18.02.2015, made in S.C.No.18 of 2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Tiruvarur/Trial Court.The Trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment on 18.02.2015, in S.C.No.18 of 2013, at Para No.25, had among other things observed as follows:-" .... It is proved by the prosecution that the accused made harassment on the score of issue-less to his wife.The above harassment on the score of issue-less definitely amount to mental cruelty on the deceased.23. P.W.7, in his evidence had deposed that he knew the deceased/Sivasankari as also the Accused, and that, the Police came to the scene of occurrence and asked for his signature in a blank paper.As a matter of fact, P.W.7 was treated as an 'Hostile Witness'.25. P.W.9 the Sub Inspector of Police, (Retired) in his evidence had stated that, presently, he got retired from the Police Department, and already, he served as a Sub Inspector of Police at Harithuvaramangalam Police Station, and while he was on duty on 19.05.2011, in the morning at 8 'O' clock, P.W.1, the complainant presented himself before the Police Station and gave a written complaint, which was registered by him, in Crime No.37 of 2011, under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and the First Information Report registered by him was Ex.P.4, and he sent the aforesaid First Information Report to R.D.O and to the concerned Higher Officials and that, he was examined by the Inspector.P.W.10 , (the Sub Inspector of Police, Retired) in his evidence had stated that he was on duty on 19.05.2011, at the Harithuvaramangalam Police Station, in P.S. Crime No.37 of 2011, under Section 174 Cr.P.C., he produced the deadbody of Sivasankari for conducting Post-Mortem, as per R.D.O's Order, at the Valangaimaan Government Hospital at 1.40 and after completion of Post-Mortem, he handedover the deadbody to the relatives and that he was examined by the Police.P.W.11 (Investigating Officer) in his evidence had stated that, while he was serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police, at Papanasam, on 19.05.2011, at about 9.00 a.m., he received a First Information Report of Harithuvaramangalam Police Station, in Crime No.37 of 2011 (registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C.) and went to the scene of occurrence at Keela Street, Veeranam Village and at about 9.30 a.m. he inspected the rooms of the Accused's and also the outside of the house with the help of R.D.O. in the presence of witnesses, i) Govindraj and ii) Chandrasekaran, and prepared Ex.P.5, Observation Mahazar and Exs.P.6 and P.7, Rough Sketch, and later, examined separately, the witnesses, Dhanapalan (P.W.1), Ganesan (P.W.2), Kanagasabai (P.W.3), Sivagamasundari (P.W.4), Guru @ Sivabalagurunathan (P.W.5) Marimuthu (P.W.6), Parvatham, Anbarasan, Murugaiyan, Natarajan, and Raja, and recorded their statements, and altered the Section from 174 Cr.P.C. to 306 IPC, and sent a report to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mannargudi.P.W.11 adds that he sent a requisition to the Mannargudi R.D.O. to transmit the F.I.R to the Court.In the Report of Mannargudi R.D.O., it was mentioned that the deceased had not died due to 'Dowry Harassment' and that, he sent the case for filing of Charge-sheet.After conducting enquiry by the Inspector, the R.D.O. Sri Ram had expired and that Ex.P.8 was the Report of the R.D.O. and the Ex.P.9, was the Inquest Report, and Ex.P.10 was the Alteration Report.In reality, when the husband or relatives of the husband subjects such woman to cruelty, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to 3 years and also saddled with fine.In this regard, the Learned Sessions Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruvarur is directed to secure the presence of the Appellant/Accused and to immure him in Prison.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part in above terms.The Inspector of Police, Harithuvaramangalam Police Station, Valangaiman Taluk, Tiruvarur.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.M.Venugopal, J.,sdCrl.A.No.144 of 201516.11.2016http://www.judis.nic.in
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
116,214,906
Heard on I.A.No.16206/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Neeraj Kumar Singh.A perusal of record reveals that appellant Neeraj Kumar Singh stands convicted under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation.As per the prosecution case, appellant Neeraj Kumar Singh was Junior Engineer in Electricity Board.At about 7:45 p.m. on 14.06.2012 he had sent deceased Ramesh Chandra, who was lineman to repair the line, in Bapcha Feeder.When deceased Ramesh Chandra was repairing the line by climbing on electric pole, appellant Neeraj Kumar Singh and operator Santosh Malviya released electric current in the Feeder.As a result, Ramesh Chandra was electrocuted and fell down from the pole and he died on the spot.
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
116,215,374
O RD E R (Order of the Court was made by T. RA J A , J. ) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Marimuthu, Son of Athmanathan, and challenging the legality of the impugned order of detention dated 28.06.2019, passed by the second respondent, under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) and branding him as 'Boot-legger' in Cr.M.P.No.32/2019, came forward to file the present Habeas Corpus Petition.2.A perusal of the Grounds of Detention dated 28.06.2019, passed by the 2nd respondent herein, would disclose among other things that the detenu, viz.,Marimuthu came to the adverse notice in the following case:-It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu was involved in a case for the commission of offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) Transport TNP Act, 1937, 420, 465, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 5, 7 of TNRS Rules, 2000 in Musiri @ Thuraiyur Prohibition Enforcement Wing Crime No.402 of 2019 (ground case).The detenu was arrested on 16.06.2019 and produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai on 17.06.2019 and remanded to judicial custody.The detaining authority on being satisfied with the materials placed by the sponsoring authority that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, clamped the order of detention and making a challenge to the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner.3.We have heard Mr.K.M.Karunakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P. ( M D ) N o .1 7 4 5 o f 2 0 1 8 in the matter of S a n k a r a m o o r t h y v .S t a t e o f Ta m i l N a d u , r e p .b y T h e P r i n c i p a l S e c r eta r y to G ove r n m e nt a n d t w o o t h e r s , in which one of us (B.PUGALENDHI, J) was a party.The relevant portion of the order runs thus:2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 H.C.P(MD)No.649 of 2019 T. RA J A , J .A ND B .
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
116,216,172
The prosecution story in short was that deceased- Radhabai was married to appellant-Gajanand @ Gajendra 2 CRA.No.1308/2012 three years prior to her death.The deceased-Radhabai used to be harassed by her husband-Gajanand (present appellant) for dowry.On 16.02.2011, Radhabai was brought in burnt condition by the appellant in Community Health Centre at Mandleshwar at about 5:30 pm.She was found to have suffered 99% burn injuries.A merg was registered in Police Sub-Station situated in MY Hospital at Indore.(Delivered on 13th day of March 2020) Per Shailendra Shukla, J.Executive Magistrate was informed who prepared the dead body's panchnama in presence of witnesses.The dead body of deceased-Radhabai was sent for post-mortem examination and the SDO who conducted inquest concluded that the deceased used to be harassed for dowry and she died in unnatural circumstances.An FIR was registered and investigation ensued resulting in filing of charge-sheet against the appellant, his parents and his brother.2 CRA.The trial Court vide judgment dated 25.09.2012 has acquitted the parents and brother of appellant-Gajanand and has convicted the appellant, as already described earlier.That in the appeal, it has been stated that the trial Court's conclusion that the appellant used to harass the deceased-Radhabai on account of dowry is not reliable/appropriate conclusion as the allegation pertaining to demand of dowry is an after thought of witnesses.It is also submitted that dying declaration of deceased on the basis of which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC is also not a reliable piece of evidence.On this ground, it has been prayed that appellant be acquitted.3 CRA.5. Considered.Submissions were heard.Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and has stated that the order of conviction is as per appropriate appreciation of evidence.Record was perused.The trial Court has relied upon the evidence of Sewantibai (PW-1), Sudhabai (PW-2), Lali (PW-3) and Kishanlal (PW-4) who have stated that the deceased- Radhabai had told them that she was set ablaze by appellant-Gajanand.Learned counsel for the appellant points out that all these witnesses have stated that dying declaration of deceased-Radhabai were recorded by Tehsildar.However, no such Tehsildar has been examined in the matter.The Investigating Officer (IO) Mr. Omkarsingh Kalash has also not stated that dying declarations of the deceased were recorded by Tehsildar.Dr. Rajesh Sharma (PW-7) before whom the deceased was brought in a burnt condition on 16.02.2011 has stated that the deceased was 99% burnt and was not in a position to speak.It is, thus, found that the dying declarations of the deceased were not recorded by Tehsildar and even if it is assumed that Tehsildar did record the dying declarations', then non-production of the same by prosecution raises a presumption that such dying declarations did not contain any allegation against the present appellant and therefore the same was not produced.All these witnesses who have stated that the deceased gave dying declarations to them are 4 CRA.No.1308/2012 interested witnesses and if the deceased was able to narrate the incident to them, there was no reason for not recording her statements by Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar.However, as the matter stands, no dying declaration recorded by Tehsildar has been filed and therefore the statements of witnesses regarding dying declaration by deceased making allegation against the present appellant becomes doubtful.There are no eye-witnesses of the incident.There is no circumstantial evidence to show that the appellant had himself set the deceased-Radhabai on fire.It has although been found proved that the appellant was in the house when the incident occurred, this however by itself, is not a sufficient evidence to return the findings of Section 302 IPC.Despite the presence of accused/appellant, there was a possibility that the fire which had engulfed the deceased- Radhabai, was infact an accidental fire or that the deceased committed suicide.Hence, after due consideration, the appellant cannot be found guilty under Section 302 IPC.4 CRA.The question is whether the deceased-Radhabai committed suicide as she was constantly harassed for demand of dowry by appellant-Gajanand.Although, the witnesses who are relatives of the deceased have stated that the deceased was constantly harassed for dowry by appellant.However, it has been found that deceased in her complaint made earlier had not made specific allegations against her husband-Gajanand (present appellant) regarding demand of dowry.Rajaram Sagore (PW-13) has stated that on 08.02.2010, while he was posted as Head Constable, 5 CRA.No.1308/2012 Radhabai had come to police station and made allegations that her husband-Gajanand beats her up under the influence of liquor.5 CRA.Thus, it appears that one year prior to the incident of burning, the deceased had lodged a report against the appellant-Gajanand (her husband) in which cruelty under the influence of liquor was alleged but there is no mention of demand of dowry by her against the appellant-Gajanand.However, this sole document cannot come to the rescue of appellant as the mother of deceased-Sewantibai (PW-1), Sisters Sudhabai (PW-2), Lali (PW-3) and Maternal Uncle Kishanlal (PW-4) have uniformly stated that appellant- Gajanand committed cruelty upon the deceased for demand of dowry and that he used to pester the deceased to give him her higher secondary marksheet so that he could obtain some loan.These statements have sought to be challenged by present appellant on the ground that the deceased was infact mentally depressed as she could not clear constable's examination and has submitted defence witness-Radhabai (DW/1) in support of this defence.Although there may have been frustration in the mind of deceased regarding her rejection in constable's examination but the fact remains that she had been harassed constantly by the present appellant due to which she had spent long duration of time in her parental house and she had even resorted to lodging of police complaint against the appellant.6 CRA.From the evidence available in the case, following circumstances are found to be proved:(a) That Radhabai's death was caused by burns.(b) Such death had occurred within seven years of her marriage.(c) The deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband.(d) Such cruelty or harassment was formed in connection with demand of dowry or,The fine amount of Rs.5000/- if deposited by the appellant be returned to him.Thus, this appeal succeeds in part.Let a copy of this order along with original record be sent to the trial Court for due compliance.7 CRA.
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
116,216,536
And In Re:- Sabera Bibi & Ors.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 3 3
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
116,225,177
3692/2019 is an application moved on behalf of complainant under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. for permission to assist learned Panel Lawyer at the time of hearing through his counsel.Prayer allowed.Shri Arun Dudawat, learned counsel on behalf of complainant is permitted to assist learned Panel Lawyer.6392/2019 stands allowed and disposed of.Heard the counsel for the parties and case diary perused.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 23/4/2019 by Police Station Sarsai, District Datia in connection with Crime No. 16/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 294, 506-B, 34 of IPC.It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that it is a case of free fight.It appears that both the parties resorted to physical force because of their previous dispute.Even otherwise, in the cross-case, complainant Ramesh Kurmi and his brother have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 9/5/2019 in M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant also referred the order dated 4/5/2019 passed in instant bail application; whereby, applicant has been granted HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.18167/2019 (Ram Singh Vs.State of M.P. ) interim bail for attending marriage of his daughter.It is submitted that applicant would abide by all the terms and conditions as fixed by this Court.Confinement since 23/4/2019 amounts to pretrial detention.2 M.Cr.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State on the basis of case diary opposed the prayer made by the applicant.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused and would not be any source to embarrassment and harassment to complainant party in any manner;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.18167/2019 (Ram Singh Vs.3 M.Cr.The applicant will make his attendance before the concerned Police Station on every Monday between 10 am to 2 pm till filing of charge sheet.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge jps/-JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI 2019.05.15 17:33:59 +05'30'
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
116,228,452
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.233 of 2020, under Sections-147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 34, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station -Jethwara, District Pratapgarh.It is submitted that first information report was lodged against 10 persons including the present applicant.It is further submitted that co-accused Rajesh Mishra and Ram Naresh Verma, who are on the same footing have been granted bail by learned court below on 30.9.2020 and the role of the present applicant is not different from them.It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and has been falsely implicated in this case.Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by learned counsel for the accused-applicant.Order Date :- 25.11.2020 (Alok Mathur, J.) RKM.
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
116,231,057
Case diary perused.The applicant has filed this second application u/S. 438, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Kotwali, District Vidisha (M.P.), in connection with Crime No.412/2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss. 498A, 354, 35, 4A, 506 and 34 IPC.In the interest of justice, co-accused Ajab Bai is mother in THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-37185-2019 (DEVENDRA DANGI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) law has been granted benefit of bail vide order dated 26/8/2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.34720/2019, therefore, he prayed for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and has submitted that the applicant has actively participated in the commission of offence.There is specific allegations against the present applicant.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishal Mishra) JUDGE vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2019.09.09 18:45:30 +05'30'
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,162,334
Brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:On receiving secret information a police party was organized and a raid was conducted.On taking personal search two counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/-each were recovered from Vinod Kumar s/o Madan Lal and five counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- each were recovered from the accused Subhash.Vinod S/o Dev Raj had to accompany them but he did not have the confirmed ticket and he joined them later.They all stayed in the same hotel and used to have their meals in Chacha Restaurant where they met Pinky and each of them purchased 10,000/- rupees of forged 100 rupee notes for 300 U.S. dollars each.All of them brought this money to Delhi.He gave 10 counterfeit notes to Vinod S/o Madan Lal R/o Paharganj and he gave the remaining notes to Chanchal Rani through Vinod S/o Dev Raj.Thereafter a raid was organized and from the house of Smt. Chanchal Rani three counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- each were recovered.The police seized the passports of all the three accused.This is evident from his passport.The recovery of counterfeit currency notes has been made from Chanchal Rani and Vinod and from the petitioner Subhash Chander.JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J.Recovery was also effected from the petitioner and other accused.Petitioner Subhash, Chanchal Rani and accused Vinod had followed them some time later.These facts were verified and confirmed from the entries of the passport.On the basis of the evidence and various documents, the prosecution has filed a charge sheet under Section 489(C) read with Section 120(B) of the I.P.C.On the basis of the entire documents and evidence on record the prosecution came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in conscious possession of forged/counterfeit notes.Even this fact is established that those forged currency notes were brought to India from Bangkok with the intention of using them as genuine.Section 489(C) and 120(B) I.P.C. reads as under:489-C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes.--Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in the Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.Mr. Luthra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in framing the charge under Section 489C read with Section 120B against the petitioner.The learned Counsel further submitted that there is no evidence on record to establish that he had acquired the said forged currency notes from Bangkok.He further submitted that the disclosure statement of one accused person cannot be used against the other accused persons unless any recovery is effected consequent to that statement.He further submitted that an offence of criminal conspiracy cannot be framed against the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner and Chanchal Rani had travelled together to Bangkok.This matter is at a stage when the charges have been framed by the learned trial Court.The Trial Court framed the charges on the basis of relevant material and documents on record.
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
116,235,842
Item No. 1It was alleged that on 04.06.2004 at about 11.00 hours two mobile phones (Nokia) being Model no. 2100 and bearing no. 9433115484 and (Nokia) Model No. 3310 and bearing no. 9831197293, have been stolen by the petitioner from the Security Gate Office, who came to appear for an interview for the post of Executive Assistant in Videocon.It was detected by the Security sn Personnel when the interview was over.It was found out of the 17 mobile phones kept in a tray in the gate office, two mobiles were missing.Subsequently two mobiles were found from the bag of the petitioner.At that time none was present at the gate office.Hence the case.He further submitted that neither the ownership was ascertained nor the petitioner claimed those two mobiles.So he prayed for quashing of the proceedings.The learned lawyer of the State placed before me the case docket containing the statements of two alleged owners of the mobile phones.The learned lawyer of the State also could not satisfy about who are the owners of two mobile phones except the statements which did not inspire confidence to hold that the statement makers are the actual owners of the mobile phones.I have heard the submission of the learned lawyers of both sides and carefully examined the materials on record including the statement of the two security guards.Relevantly for better appreciation of the case Sections 378 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code needs to be reproduced here:-Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code.Admittedly there was an interview scheduled to be held in the Videocon Office concerned on the relevant date.For that, it is admitted position that 17 mobile phones were kept in a tray at the security gate.Allegedly two mobiles were recovered from the bag belonging to the present petitioner.To attract Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code for the purpose of commission of theft, the main ingredient is the ownership and parting with the property belonging to the owner without his consent.Here, who are the owners of the two mobile phones, appears not to have been established by any document.So the ownership has not been established.Further it is also not established that without the consent of the actual owner such property has been removed deceitfully.Mere finding of two mobile phones from the bag of the petitioner will not be sufficient particularly in view of the fact that previously there was no identification mark given by the security personnel that such and such mobiles belonged to such and such persons and subsequently those were found to be contained in the bag of the present petitioner.This being the position, it is unsafe to implicate the present petitioner for commission of theft in terms of Section 379 read with 411 of the Indian Penal Code.I find merit in the revision.Accordingly, the revision stands allowed and disposed of.
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
116,238,662
According to prosecution, on 11.12.1991, PW1 Amrutlal, resident of Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar, Maharastra, along with his wife Heerabai, (PW2), and daugther Archana, (PW3), was going from Harda to Bhusawal from Up Train No.1358, at that time between the station Dongargarh and Mandwa, between 2 and 4.45 in the night, Amrutlal, (PW1), slept and when train reached Mandwa station, Amrutlal, (PW1), woke up and found that one of his bag containing gold and silver ornaments, clothes and cash, is missing.After search when the bag was not found, Amrutlal,(PW1), made a complaint, Ex.P/1, at about 6.30 2 AM to G.R.P. Chowki, Burhanpur, about missing of his bag containing gold and silver ornaments, locket, chain, four bangles, 3 rings, earrings, cash and clothes.The petitioner preferred this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.12.2000 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa, in Criminal Appeal No.39/1999, arising out of the judgment dated 9.3.1999 passed by Special Railway Magistrate, Khandwa, in Criminal Case No.1038/1992, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:-On the basis of the aforesaid report, G.R.P. Chowki, Burhanpur, registered an offence under section 379 I.P.C. against unknown person.On 1.6.1992 the police arrested one Munna @ Ashok on suspicion and inquired about the incident.He confessed vide his confession, Ex.P/7, that he has given some clothes and ornaments to the applicant Kailash.On 3.6.1992 Investigating Officer, S.S.Saraswat arrested Kailash, resident of Bhorasa, District Dewas, and inquired about the ornaments and clothes and on the same day, i.e. 3.6.1992, Kailash confessed vide his confession letter, Ex.P/8, that he obtained one pair of golden earrings and a 'mangalsutra' from his brother-in-law Munna @ Ashok and mortgaged it to one Shashi soni and obtained Rs.2,000/- from him.On the same day, the gold earrings and 'mangalsutra' were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/4 and in the identification process PW1 Amrutlal and PW2 Heerabai identified their ornaments.On 4.6.1992 applicant informed that he has given one necklace and 4 bangles to one Goldsmith of Chandni Chowk, Ratlam.The said ornaments could not be seized.Thereafter, on 7.6.1992 vide memo Ex.P/10 the applicant informed about giving of four bangles, necklace, chain, one pair of tops and a ring to one Prakash Jain, PW7, resident of Bharosa.On the basis of said information, on 9.6.1992 vide seizure memo Ex.Thereafter, on 9.6.1992 vide memo Ex.P/11 on the basis of information given by applicant one ring and two sarees were seized from his house vide seizure memo, Ex.On 3.6.1992 one gold ring was also seized from the petitioner.(SMT.VIMLA JAIN) JUDGE HS 5
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
110,611,751
This is second application under Section 438 Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail on being rejection of the first application as not pressed.Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.229/2016 registered at Police Station Prathavipur, district Tikamgarh for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 324, 452, 506-B/34 of IPC.He is directed to join the investigation immediately and fully cooperate with the investigating agency and the trial.In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.Conditions of Section 438(2) shall apply on the applicant during currency of bail.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE rsshukla
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
110,681,747
In the present case, since the complainant himself is injured witness, his evidence is important.He is examined as PW-1 and his evidence is at ExhibitIn his examination-in-chief, he has stated that, on 09.10.2004, he was proceeding towards village Madalmohi on foot.When he reached near the agricultural land owned by Annasaheb Nawale, accused no.2 named Shivaji came on motorcycle and met him there.The accused no.2 asked him that, he should vote for B.J.P. during the general elections to the Assembly.He told him that, he would vote for Rashtrawadi Congress and not for B.J.P. Then accused no.2 threatened him that, if he did not vote in favour of B.J.P., he would see him.Then accused no.2 went to his village.It is stated by this witness that, then he went to village Madalmohi and purchased grocery ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 15 articles and returned to his village (Wasti).Then he narrated about the incident regarding the threat given by accused no.2 to his brother named Sudam.This witness has further stated that, again on 11.10.2004, he went to Madalmohi in the evening at about 6.00 p.m. for purchase of grocery articles.Then this witness along with Bapu Ghongde, Bhiku Ghongde, Punjaram Yerande, Pintu Yerande were returning to their village, and when they were passing from near the agricultural land owned by Vishnu Bhople, accused nos. 1 and 2 named Shriram and Shivaji came there on motorcycle.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::At that time, Shivaji was riding the said motorcycle.He stopped the motorcycle.However, he has given vital admission in his evidence that, the said patient was conscious at the time when he came to his hospital.This witness stated that, then he recorded his statement at Police Outpost, Madalmohi.In cross examination of PW-6 nothing useful to the defence has been brought on record.The prosecution examined Ashok Ramchandra Jadhav as PW-5, who was working at the relevant time as P.S.I. at Georai Police Station.RESERVED ON : February 02, 2015 PRONOUNCED ON : March 09, 2015 ...::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::Criappeal111.06 3 JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE,J):-Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2006 is filed by the original accused, who are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,500/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.So also accused no.2 is further convicted in respect of offence punishable under section 506 of I.P. Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.Criminal Appeal No. 573 of 2006 is filed by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence and also the original complainant has also filed Criminal Revision Application No. 70 of 2006 praying therein for convicting the accused for offence under Section 307 read with section 34 of I.P. Code and also ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 4 the acquittal order of accused of the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of I.P. Code and further acquitting the accused no.2 Shivaji Pawal of the offence punishable under section 504 of I.P. Code.It is further prayed that, the accused may be held guilty for the offence under section 307 read with section 34 of I.P. Code and maximum sentence be imposed upon them.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::The brief facts of the prosecution case, are as under :-(i) On or about 09.10.2004, at about 12.00 noon, on Shahajanpur-Madalmohi road, the accused no.2 named Shivaji Laxman Pawal was proceeding towards Shahajanpur, on motor cycle.On seeing the complainant named Dattu Ambadas Shinde, he stopped and told the complainant that, he should vote for B.J.P. in the forthcoming legislative assembly election, and he would pay some amount to him.On ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 5 this, the complainant told him that, he would not vote for B.J.P., but would vote for Rashtravadi Congress Party.Then the accused no.2 threatened him that, in case he vote for Rashtravadi Congress Party, then accused no.2 would see him.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::(ii) Thereafter, it so happened that, on 11.10.2014 at about 6.30 P.M. the complainant was returning from Madalmohi to his village, and one Bhiku Baliram Ghongde and Bapu Bhaskar Ghongde both r/o Ankota and Punjaram Erande, Pintya Amruta Erande both r/o Shahajanpur were accompanying him, at that time when they were passing on Kaccha road leading to village Shahajanpur, and when they reached near the agricultural land of Vishnu Genu Bhople, the accused nos. 1 and 2 came from behind on motor-cycle, and stopped their motor-cycle just ahead of the complainant and his companions, and asked the complainant as to why he was not going to vote for B.J.P. ? and started abusing him.Then the accused no.1 assaulted the complainant by pelting said stone on his head on left side above the ear, and thus the complainant sustained injury which was bleeding.Then the complainant became unconscious.He regained consciousness on 15-10-2004 in the evening but he was not able to talk.Accordingly, offence was registered at Georai Police Station vide Crime No. 163/2004 under Sections 307, 504, 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused nos. 1 and 2 and on investigation, both of them have been charge-sheeted.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Their defence is of denial in toto.They have also suggested that, the complainant/injured is in the habit of lodging false complaints in order to extract money.The trial Court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, convicted accused nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,500/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.Accused no.2 -Shivaji Laxman Pawal is further convicted for the offence punishable under section 506 of I.P. Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default to ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 8 undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::However, the trial Court acquitted the accused nos. 1 and 2 of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with section 34 of I.P. Code and accused no.2 - Shivaji Pawal is acquitted of offence under Section 504 of I.P.Hence this appeal.The learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.It is also submitted that, the conduct of victim - P.W.1 in keeping mum from 09.10.2004 to 07.11.2004 despite several opportunities to lodge First Information Report or disclose to the police, brands his F.I.R. as a product of after thought, careful deliberation and pre-mediation.It is true that my relatives used to come to meet me during the said period, I had informed my brother Sudam about the alleged incident which took place on 11.10.2004 on my return to village from Aurangabad and when I could speak.It may be either on 27.10.2004 or 28.10.2004."::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::The learned counsel also submitted that, the non-examination of Sudam, brother of the victim -It is strange, no First Information Report was lodged even then although his relatives were undoubtedly present.It is submitted that, the evidence of the doctors run counter to each other.P.W.4 (Dr. Jadhav) has issued a certificate (Exh. 17) which reveals 2 injuries on the head.He admits in cross-examination that, injury No.2 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 10 (Contusion on left tempero parietal region) is superficial and does not have any depth and not sufficient to cause depressed fracture.In sharp contrast, P.W.7 -::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::Dunakhe states that, there was no injury on the right side of the head and he has issued a certificate (Exh.25) which reveals a depressed fracture of the left temporal bone.It is difficult to reconcile these features.The learned counsel further submitted that, the admission of P.W. - 6 - ASI Shelke that he did not seize the stone on the spot or the blood stained clothes of P.W. 1 vitiates the prosecution case.The version of the defence witness - D.W. 2- Radhakishan Yanegar, which has emerged unscathed after cross-examination by the prosecution leaves no doubt that the victim was injured in an accident when he was dashed by a Jeep.The endorsement - History Vehicular accident on the medical certificate (Exh. 17) issued from the hospital where the victim was taken initially corroborates this.This completely demolishes the prosecution story.The ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 11 learned counsel appearing for the original accused further submitted that, the delay in lodging the First Information Report was fatal to the prosecution case, same is not explained and therefore, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused of all the charges levelled against them.Therefore, he submits that, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::It is submitted that, if the offence is committed punishable under Section 307 of I.P. Code, in that case, the injuries sustained is not the relevant consideration, but whether the accused had intention to commit the murder and as a matter of fact, attempted to commit murder is relevant consideration.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::Therefore, it is submitted that, in addition to conviction of the accused for offence punishable under section 326 read with section 34 and sections 504, 511 of I.P.Code, the accused deserves to be convicted for an offence ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 13 punishable under Section 302, by awarding them maximum punishment provided in the said section.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::We have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.With their able assistance, we have perused the entire evidence brought on record so as to reappreciate the same.In the present matter, following charge was framed and on the said charge, the trial Court proceeded further.The said charge reads thus :-"That, you accused no.2 Shivaji Laxman Pawal on or about 9th day of October, 2004 at 12.00 noon on Shahajanpur- Madalmohi road, intentionally insulted and thereby gave provocation to Dattu Ambadas Shinde, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause the said Dattu Ambads Shinde to break the public peace and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance;Secondly, that, you accused nos.1 and 2 viz. Shriram Janardhan Jethe and Shivaji Laxman Pawal on or about 11th day of October, 2004 at 6.30 p.m. on Madalmohi - Shahajanpur road, in furtherance of common intention, did an act by assaulting Dattu Ambadas Shinde by stone on the head, above the left ear, with such intention or knowledge and under such ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 14 circumstances, that, if by that act you both had caused death of Dattu Ambadas Shinde, you both would have been guilty of murder and that you caused hurt to said Dattu Ambads Shinde by the said act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code and within my cognizance."::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::Then accused nos. 1 and 2 threatened him that, if he did not vote for B.J.P., then they would see him.Both of them asked him as to how he would dare not to vote for B.J.P. Accused no.1 took one sharp edged stone lying there and accused no.2 asked him to beat this witness.Then, accused no.1 assaulted this witness by means of said stone on his head.As a result of which he sustained bleeding injury ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 16 and he was fell down and became unconscious.This witness was brought to Civil Hospital at Beed.The Medical Officer in the said hospital referred him to Dr.Milind Dunake's Hospital at Aurangabad (Neurologist).This witness regained consciousness after about 8 days and he came to know from his brother as to how he was admitted in that hospital.At that time, he was not able to speak though he could hear.He was discharged from the said hospital.Then he returned to his village Shahajanpur and lodged the complaint at Police Outpost at Madalmohi.He identified the complaint which is at Exhibit - 12 and contents thereof.This witness identified accused nos. 1 and 2 who assaulted him on the date of incident who were present in the Court.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::This witness was cross-examined by the counsel appearing for the defence on the aspect of delay in lodging the First Information Report and also on other aspects including the presence of accused ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 17 no.2 at the spot on the date of incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::Upon careful perusal of his examination in cross, he did admit that, it is his 6th complaint, however, it does not mean that, 6th complaint against the present accused.He has admitted that, his brother Sudam was also accompanied with him at the Police Outpost at Madalmohi.He reiterated his contention that, accused no.1 assaulted him by means of stone.He has further stated that, it is true that, his clothes were stained with blood due to injury sustained by him on his head.He denied the suggestion that, he is in habit of asking money by filing false complaint.He did admit that, accused no.2 is serving as teacher in Junior College situated near Jai Bhawani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::If the evidence of PW-1 is considered in its entirety, as rightly held by the trial Court, it appears to be trustworthy and reliable and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence.At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer the evidence of Medical Officer.He stated the history of road traffic accident.The patient named Dattu Ambadas Shinde was brought to Civil Hospital, Beed by Radhakrishna Dhondiba Yamgar.The patient had ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 19 sustained injury due to accident.This witness noticed the following injuries :-::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::1. C.L.W. in right tempero parietal region 2 cm x 1 cm x half cm., fresh, probable weapon might be hard and blunt object.It was simple injury.Contusion Site left tempero parietal region, dimension 2 x 3 cm.age of injury- fresh, probable weapon hard and blunt, nature of injury-simple.This witness stated that, on seeing the injury sustained by complainant i.e., injured, the same might have been caused by hard and blunt object.Though the said injury is simple in nature, it is likely to cause damage to the brain.The companion of the injured had told history of assault.This witness issued medical certificate, which he identified and stated that, the contents thereof are correct.The defence tried to bring on record during cross-examination of PW-4 that, injury no.2 is not ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 20 sufficient to cause depress fracture.PW-4 further admitted that, if the person falls on hard and blunt object, then such injuries are possible.He specifically denied the suggestion that, the patient is suffering from aphasia.He further admitted in his cross-examination that, injury nos. 1 and 2 are on different parts of head i.e. left and right parietal region.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::In his examination-in-chief he stated that, he is neurosurgeon and he is running hospital in the name and style as "Brain and Spine Centre" at Aurangabad.He had history of unconsciousness, vomiting, aphasia.On examining the injured, this witness noted as follows :-"He was conscious having motor aphasia, ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 21 pupils normal.On local examination; he found that, he had sutured would left temporal region, 3 cms long, on C.T. Scan, head, he was having depressed fracture left temporal bone with small extradural bleed, left parietal region."::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::This witness stated that, he informed the Police at Kranti Chowk Police Chowky about the injuries sustained by the said patient in medico-legal case.The nature of injury is grievous.The said patient was conscious at the time when he came to his hospital.However, he was suffering from aphasia.The patient had sustained compound depressed fracture on left temporal region and he had aphasia.In case, a stone with sharp edge is hit on the head of the said patient, then such injury is possible.Then he issued the medico-legal certificate.He identified the said certificate ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 22 and the signature on it.This witness stated that, the said medico-legal certificate was handed over to P.S.I.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::He has brought the case papers pertaining to C.T. Scan.There was compression on the brain due to fracture.Brother of the injured Jagannath Pawal has gave history of assault.He denied the suggestion that, he issued false certificate.He further stated that, the said patient had come with reference letter issued by Civil Hospital, Beed.He identified contents of the said letter shown to him.He further stated that, the police had come to his hospital on 12th October, 2004 at about 8 p.m. He stated that, entry dated 24 th October, 2004 in admission paper is correct.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::If the evidence of PW-7 is read in its entirety, in uncertain word, he stated that, nature of injury is grievous.He further stated that, the patient had sustained compound depressed fracture on left temporal region and he had aphasia.He specifically stated that, in case a stone with sharp edge is hit on the head of the said patient, then such injury is possible.Therefore, if the evidence of the complainant is examined in the light of the medical evidence, it is abundantly clear that, the injury inflected is on head, which was grievous in nature and very fact that, accused no.1 Shriram Jethe assaulted on the head of PW-1 Dattu, that would make clear that, accused no.1 had intention to cause grievous hurt to the injured.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::Upon perusal of the points framed by the trial Court for its determination, the trial Court did not frame the point for its determination that, whether the accused persons have committed the offence under Section 307 read with section 34 of I.P. Code, however, acquitted them on the ground that, the injuries sustained by the victim are simple in nature.Then he took the complainant and the complaint lodged by him to Georai Police Station and produced ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 25 the complainant before Shri.Jadhav, P.S.I. Then P.S.I.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::Jadhav registered the offence accordingly.Accordingly, he registered the offence vide Cr.I 163/2004 under sections 307, 504 read with section 34 of I.P. Code.He took over the investigation into the offence in this case.He went to the scene of offence.The panchas named Navnath Bhople and Udhav Sarpate were called to act as panchas, at the time when the panchanama of scene of offence was drawn.He identified the said panchanama at Exhibit - 13 which was shown to him.This witness stated that, then he recorded the statements of witnesses.This witness has ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 26 stated that, the medical certificate in the case of injured was obtained from Dr. Dunake, Aurangabad.He identified the said medical certificate and stated that, he himself collected the said certificate from Dr. Dunake.This witness further stated that, it was transpired during investigation that, the offence alleged against the accused persons has been made out substantially and therefore, he submitted charge-sheet against them in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Georai.He identified accused nos.1 and 2 who were present before the Court.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::This witness has admitted in his cross-examination that, there was delay of about one month in lodging the complaint.Though this witness has stated that, the complainant has not lodged the complaint against six different persons, his statement runs contrary to the statements of complainant as complainant in his cross-examination did admit that, he lodged six complaints.This witness has further ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 27 admitted that, blood stained clothes of the injured were not seized.He denied the suggestion that, he has filed a false charge-sheet against accused persons, at the instance of Shri.Badamrao Pandit, who was M.L.A. at the relevant time.He denied that, he did not visit scene of offence.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::igThe defence did examine Shaukat Dagdubhai Patel, so as to bring on record that, on the date of incident i.e. on 9th October, 2004, as a matter of fact accused no.2 was present in the college.In his examination-in-chief he stated that, he was working as Principal in the Jai Bhawani Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Gadhi, Tq.On 9th October, 2004, he was attending his duties in the said college.He teaches biology subject to the students of 11 th and 12th standard.The timing of the said college for science faculty is from 9.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. inclusive of the lunch break from 1.00 to 1.30 p.m. Accused no.2 was attending his duties to deliver lecture between 10.20 to 11.00 a.m. on 11th (B) Science, then he attended duties on the class 11th (A) Science from 11.00 a.m. to 11.40 a.m., from 11.40 to 12.20 p.m. on 12 th Science (B), then on class 12 th A Science from 12.20 to 1.00 p.m. This witness stated that, then he attended the periods for practicals during the period from 1.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. The teaching staff members are required to sign the muster roll at 10.00 a.m. and at about 1.00 p.m. on every working day.He had brought the original muster roll with him on that day.He identified the entries pertaining to the month of October.There is no page number to each page in the register.On seeking the entries in the case of accused no.2, this witness stated that, he attended the duties in the month of October on every working day, except on ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 29 27th October, 2004, on which day he availed C.L. He had also brought the copy of time table and he identified the same and signature thereon.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::Defence also examined Radhakishan Dhondiba Yamgar as D.W.-2 to prove that, the victim was injured in accident.In his cross-examination, he admitted that, he did not witness the actual incident, therefore, his evidence is not believed by the trial Court.We have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses hereinbefore.So far accused no.2 is concerned, the complainant in his evidence has only stated that, he threatened him on 9 th October, 2004 that, accused should vote for B.J.P., else he would face the consequences.We are prepared to ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 30 accept the evidence of defence witness Shaukat Dagdubhai Patel that, on the relevant date the Respondent No.2 was in the school.Even in cross examination of the complainant he admitted that, accused no.2 Shivaji Pawal is serving as a teacher in Junior College situated near Jai Bhawani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana and accused no.2 proceeds to Gadhi in the morning at about 8.30 a.m. on motorcycle for attending his duties and returns to the village at about 5.00 p.m.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::Therefore, in our opinion, accused no.2 is entitled for benefit of doubt.So far, accused no.1 is concerned, though the trial Court has believed the evidence of complainant and also the medical evidence, nevertheless, he is acquitted from the offence punishable under section 307 of I.P. Code with observations that, the victim sustained two simple injuries, and therefore, the offence punishable under section 307 of I.P. Code is not committed.At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of Section 307 of I.P. Code, which reads thus:-::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::Attempt to murder.-Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.Attempts by life convicts.-[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 32 [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::If the act of accused no.1- Shriram Jethe assaulting the complainant on head by stone is considered, there is no manner of doubt that, accused no.1 Shriram Jethe had knowledge that, in case, if he assault by stone on head of the complainant, it would cause grievous hurt and may cause death of the complainant.Even such attempt by accused no.1 with an intention or knowledge was sufficient to convict accused for offence punishable under section 307 of I.P. Code.Though the trial Court has observed that, the complainant Dattu has sustained two simple injuries, upon perusal of the evidence of PW-7 Dr. Milind Dunake, it is abundantly clear that, the complainant was assaulted on his head and he sustained grievous injuries, which would have caused his death but for timely treatment, not resulted in to death.The Supreme Court in the case of Vasant Virthu Jadhav V/s State ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 33 of Maharashtra1 while interpreting and explaining the scope of section 307, held that, the important thing to be borne in mind determining the question whether an offence under section 307, is made out is the intention and not the injury.In the case of Ansarudin V/s State of Madhya Pradesh2, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that, it is not necessary that injury, capable of causing death, should have been inflicted.What is material to attract, the provisions of section 307 is the guilty intention or knowledge with which the all was done, irrespective of its result.The intention and knowledge are the matters of inference from totality of circumstances and cannot be measured merely from the results.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::Therefore, in our opinion accused no.1 ought to have been even convicted for offence punishable under section 307 of I.P. Code.As already observed, the spot of incident has been proved by the 1 (1997) 2Crimes 539(Bom) 2 (1997) 2 Crimes 157(MP) ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 34 prosecution witnesses and same is admitted by the accused.Therefore, inescapable conclusion is that, the accused no.1 who had assaulted the complainant Dattu on his head with knowledge that, his assault by stone on head of the complainant would result into death, is liable to be punished for offence punishable under section 307 of I.P. Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::We have already observed that, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against accused no.2 - Shivaji Pawal and also no specific overt act is attributed qua him on the date of incident on 11th October, 2004 by the complainant therefore, the accused no.2 is entitled for benefit of doubt.So far accused no.1 is concerned, upon perusal of findings recorded by the trial Court, so far convicting him for offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P. Code is concerned, we confirm the said ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 35 findings and sentence awarded by the trial Court in clause (3) of the operative part of the order.(ii) Though the complainant was able to speak from 27th October, 2004, the First Information Report was not promptly lodged.(iii) Though the complainant was not able to lodge the First Information Report, it was possible for his brother to lodge the complaint.(iv) the motive to assault on complainant Dattu by accused no.1 Shriram Jethe is on account of refusal of the complainant to vote in favour of candidate belonging to B.J.P. It appears that, accused no. 1 did not come prepared to assault the complainant.However, at the spot of incident he picked up stone and assaulted on the head of the complainant.But certainly, accused ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 36 had knowledge that, such assault on the head of the complainant would result into grievous hurt and may cause death of the complainant.Therefore, keeping in view, the aforementioned factors, in our opinion, ends of justice would meet, if accused no.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-to injured informant Dattu Ambadas Shinde.Hence, the following order :-::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::(i) The impugned order of acquittal of accused no.1 -Shriram Janardhan Jethe for offence punishable under Section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 37 Code is quashed and set aside.Accused no.1 - Shriram Janardhan Jethe is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-, (Rs. Three Lacs Only) to injured informant Dattu Ambadas Shinde as per provisions of Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. within one month from the date of this order, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.Conviction of accused no.1 for offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P. Code, as ordered by the trial Court, stands confirmed.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::(ii) So far accused no.2 - Shivaji Laxman Pawal is concerned, he is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 307, 326, 506 of I.P. Code and is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him.(iii) Period of detention, if any, in the case of accused no.1 - Shriram Janardhan Jethe is hereby set ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 ::: Criappeal111.06 38 of, as provided under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::(iv) Both the sentences to run concurrently.(v) The order passed by the trial Curt is modified accordingly and substituted by the order passed by this Court today.In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, Criminal Appeal filed by the accused is partly allowed.So also Criminal Appeal filed by the State is also partly allowed.The Criminal Revision filed by the complainant is disposed of in view of the disposal of State Appeal.Accordingly both appeals are disposed of on above terms.::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2015 23:59:33 :::
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
110,740,354
1 88 05.08.2013 rpan Ct.And In the matter of:- Hannan Sk. & Ors.-Petitioners Mr. Asraf Mandal ...for the Petitioners Mr. Manoranjan Mahato ...for the State Leave to amend the cause title, as the Section 307 under the Indian Penal Code and the Sections 25/27 under the Arms Act have not been incorporated.The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Thanarpara Police Station Case No.144 of 2013 dated 12.07.2013 under Sections 341/379/323/506/34/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27, Arms Act, have filed this application for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material including the injury report.The Petitioner No.1, Hannan Sk. has been specifically implicated and therefore, his application for anticipatory bail is rejected.Hence, in the event of arrest, the Petitioners No.2 to 8, Mainul Sk., Nurman Sk., Jabbar Khamaru, Amir Mondal, Joyanta Sk., Nurjaman Sk.and Bablu Halsana respectively shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of `2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) each with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.partly allowed The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
110,809,001
Thereafter, they came to know no such plots, which has been sold to her and various other persons, exists.On the basis of this a report has been lodged at Police Station - Lasudiya for the aforesaid offence.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been arrested in the present crime for being director of the said company and had signed the sale deeds on behalf of the company.In fact, the applicant was the servant of the co-accused Ritesh Ajmera who has made him the Director of the company in the year 2012 and on the direction of the said Ritesh Ajmera and other co-accused persons, the applicant had Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2019.06.06 15:30:13 +05'30' M.Cr.C. No.22310/2019 2 signed the documents.Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.C. No.22310/2019 2Certified copy as per rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) V. JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2019.06.06 15:30:41 +05'30'
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
111,215,637
C.C. as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE MKBHeard the learned counsel for the parties.He assures that he will cooperate with the investigation.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,162,565
JUDGMENT P.K. Bahri, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 8, 1982 of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by which he convicted the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C., and vide order of sentence of the even date, he sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased Sukh Lal was familiar with the appellant and Kanhaiya Lal and Gian Chand and on day of occurrence i.e. October 26, 1981 at about 10.45 p.m. at Ganga Mandir Marg, Near Gali No. 63, Regarpura.New Delhi they were found gambling.Ram Chander and Madan Lal, the two brothers' of Sukh Lal had come in search of Sukh Lal as he had not returned home and it was getting late night and they found them gambling at that place.They wanted Sukh Lal to get up and leave the said place on which Bhagwan Dass, Gian Chand and Kanhaiya Lal also stood up and they exchanged hot words with Sukh Lal and they proceeded towards the lane.When they had reached the place of occurrence, Bhagwan Dass, Gian Chand and Kanhaiya Lal started pressurising Sukh Lal to continue to gamble with them but Sukh Lal declined to further gamble at that time.It is the case of the prosecution that at that time Gian Chand and Kanhaiya Lal caught hold of Sukh Lal from his both sides and exhorted Bhagwan Dass to stab him with knife uttering the words "Bhagwan Dass Ko Kaha Ki Mar Sale Ko".On such exhortation, Bhagwan Dass had taken out the knife and gave a forceful blow on the right thigh of Sukh Lal from the back side.At that time, one Kishore Kumar had also reached the spot and three assailants are stated to have fled away from that place.Sukh Lal, who had become unconscious and was bleeding, was removed to Willingdon Hospital where doctor had declared him dead.On the statement of Madan Lal, the case was registered vide F.I.R. No. 1036/82 at Police Station Karol Bagh, New Delhi.As far as the occurrence is concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence led and the material placed before him, that the appellant had caused the aforesaid injury to the deceased.The real purpose of the appellant and his co-accused was to somehow make Sukh Lal to gamble with them but Sukh Lal was not keen on gambling at that time because his two brothers had come and so he wanted to go back to his house and suddenly the appellant had taken out the knife and gave one stab blow at the back of the thigh of the deceased and so the offence committed is under Section 304 Part II of Indian Panel Code.According to the post-mortem report prepared by Dr. Bharat Singh, PW-13, two incised wounds were noted which were continuous one on the back of the right thigh of the deceased and the internal examination of the wound disclosed that palatial artery was punctured and he opined in his report.Ex. PW-13/A, that death was due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from injury to the said artery and the said injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.We have gone through the statements of the witnesses, particularly of Ram Chander PW-7 and Madan Lal PW-5 and we find that they had no reason to give any version for falsely implicating the appellant.Their statements are straight forward and truthful and have rightly been believed by the Additional Session Judge for holding that the occurrence had taken place in the manner mentioned above and the appellant had caused the said injury.However, the question which arises for consideration is that what offence has been made out against the appellant in view of the aforesaid facts.Under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, the offence would be culpable homicide amounting to murder if there was any intention to cause death.Clause 3 of Section 300 could have been made applicable if the appellant had intended to cause the injury to the said particular artery which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.In that case also, the injury had been caused on the deceased's thigh with a knife which had cut femoral artery and that injury was opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.We partly allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and convert his conviction to under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code.The appellant has already undergone about six years of imprisonment.The appeal stands disposed of.
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
116,264,133
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.34414/2020 (Hare Singh @ Hari Singh s/o Nahar Singh Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh AND VICTIM / PROSECUTRIX) Indore, Dated 07.10.2020 Mr. Durgesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Vijay Kumar Nagpal, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.After arguing for some time on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the bail application.Prayer allowed.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.34414/2020 is dismissed as withdrawn.
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
116,267,398
The case of the prosecution is that on 15.10.2012 at 6.30 p.m.,due to previous enmity the accused along with three other persons came to the Paris Priest room and pulled the cutting bell and when he came out and saw that who pulled the bell, the accused persons abused him and by using their belt tried to strangulate his neck and other persons attempted to stab him.On seeing the same, when the staff members raised hue and cry,t he accused persons abused them in filthy language and also threatened them to do away.This petition has been filed to withdraw the case in C.C.No.104 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magsitrate, Eraniel to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, TirunelveliThereafter the staff members caught hold of the accused person and informed to the second respondent police and made a complaint before the second respondent.Based on which the second respondent police registered a case in Crime No.736 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 352,323 and 506(ii) of IPC.As a counter blast, the second accused in Crime No.736 of 2012 gave a false complaint before the second respondent against Kalister the Paris Preist and 14 others, based on which a case in Crime No. 737 of 2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 147,342,324,323,294(b), 2/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli shall not record common evidence or substitute evidence in one case as evidence in other case and in no case shall deliver common judgment and there should be separate Public Prosecutors to conduct prosecution in both cases.After the receipt of case records in C.C.No. 104 of 2012 from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eranile, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli shall endeavour to complete trial in both cases and render judgments within a period of four months.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli2.The Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.8/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No 3647 of 2020 A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.aav Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3467 of 2020 and Crl.MP.(MD)No.1859 of 2020 26.02.2020
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
116,273,791
[Delivered on : 10.05.2018]This appeal has been filed by the accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.02.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No.95/2007 whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced for Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and default stipulation.Prosecution story in brief is that, on 25.07.2007 at about 7 PM, a dispute has been taken place between Hari Ram (appellant) and one Raja Thakur.Hariram slapped to Raja Thakur on his cheek.Tai Gond (since deceased) interrupted Hari Ram and saved Raja Thakur from assault made by the appellant.Tai Gond (since deceased) dropped Raja Thakur out of the village.Appellant threatened the deceased to kill him.The incident was narrated to Sarpanch of the village by the deceased, his wife Makho Bai 2 and his daughter Maya saw the incident while returning, under the tree of neem, the appellant inflicted blow of axe on the chest of Tai Gond (since deceased).Deceased fell down on the ground.Makho Bai and his daughter Chhoti Bai cried and shouted thereafter, other villagers came there.They brought Tai Gond (since deceased) to District Hospital, Panna where he died.Naresha Gond, brother of the deceased lodged the report at 10.30 PM on the same day at Police Station Kotwali, Panna.Offence under Section 302 of IPC has been registered against the appellant.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court.Appellant was charged under Section 302 of IPC by the learned trial Court.After considering the evidence of eye witnesses (PW-2) Makhko Bai, (PW-3) Ku.Maya and (PW-7) Chhoti Bai and other villagers which is corroborated by the medical evidence.Learned trial Court held that the appellant inflicted blow of axe on the chest (vital part) which was also affected other vital organs of the deceased.The deceased was died due to excessive bleeding just after the incident, therefore, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.Appellant has challenged the aforesaid findings on the ground that learned trial Court wrongly convicted him.There is no independent evidence against him and the medical evidence is also 3 not supported the prosecution case.The article "axe" was not send for chemical examination to FSL, therefore, he prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and also prayed for his acquittal from the charge levelled against him.We have heard, Shri Ajay Tamrakar, amicus-curiae and Shri Aditya Jain, learned Dy.Govt. Adv.for the State.Shri Jain, strongly opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.He submit that there is sufficient evidence against the appellant.6. Perused the record.Prosecution examined so many eye witnesses.(PW-1) Naresha Gond (brother of the deceased), (PW-2) Makhko Bai (wife of the deceased), Ku.Maya Gond (daughter of the deceased).Although, they were close relatives of the deceased.They strongly deposed against the appellant.They witnessed the incident.(PW-1) Naresha Gond also saw the dispute between appellant Hariram and Raja Thakur.Thereafter, from his courtyard that appellant inflicted blow on the chest of Tai Gond.FIR Ex.P-1 has been lodged by him.Facts of FIR has been corroborated by Makho Bai (PW-2) Ku.Maya (PW-3).At the time of incident, both were present with the deceased.Their presence has not been rebutted in their cross-examination.The other witnesses i.e. Ram Bai Gond (PW-4), Ranjeet (PW-5), Boura Gond ((PW-6) and Dropadi Bai (PW-8), deposed that deceased tried 4 to save Raja Thakur from the appellant during the incident, therefore, appellant threatened the deceased to kill him.They also saw that appellant inflicted blow of axe on the deceased.We do not find any inconsistency in their statements or any material contractions between the testimony of them.As per (PW-11) J.P.S. Parihar, FIR has been lodged on the same day just after the incident.He reached on the spot.He send the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem.(PW-9) Dr. L.K. Tiwari, Assistant Surgeon, posted at District Hospital, Panna, conducted autopsy of the deceased.He found that one big spindled shaped incised wound present on the chest of the deceased over second and third ribs.This wound also affected the sternum of chest.Chest cavity opened at wound and part of injured lung protruded.During internal examination, he found that one lung was affected it was raptured.Size of injury was 9x4 cm right side of lung.Blood was collected in the cavity of right lung.All the injuries were ante- mortem and homicidal in nature which was caused by sharp cutting object.He opined that deceased died due to excessive bleeding from lungs and cut in coronary artery.It is important to mention that report of the post-mortem (Ex-P-8) has not been challenged by the appellant which clearly indicates that appellant forcefully inflicted 5 blow of axe on the chest (vital part) due to that blow, other vital parts were damaged.In the present case, the medical evidence is corroborated by ocular evidence.The evidence on record is duly supported to prosecution story.(PW-11) J.P.S. Parihar, Investigating Officer, arrested the appellant on 28.07.2007 (Ex.P-6) and recovered axe from his house which was used in the incident.Blood stains were found on the handle of the axe.Panch witness Ranjit corroborate the testimony of Investigating Officer.He also deposed that he saw that axe was blood stained.The aforesaid evidence is cogent and trustworthy.We do not find any reason to disbelieve the aforesaid evidence in favour of the appellant.This established that appellant intentionally and knowingly cause death of the deceased by using sharp cutting object i.e. axe.There was a single blow.No repeated blows was inflicted by him.Earlier to the incident, appellant threatened the deceased to kill him.However, the deceased was not quarrelling with the appellant.He wanted to save life of one Raja Thakur.on that reason only, the appellant assaulted him, as mentioned in the aforesaid manner.In State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam [(1995) 1 SCC 326] this Court considered the usual argument of a single injury not being sufficient to invite a conviction under Section 302 IPC.In that case the injury was caused by a knife.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
116,276,052
(i) The appellant is the husband of Rukhsana.Both use to reside in "Pathan mohalla", Pathari, Dist.In-laws of Rukhsana were also residing at Pathari and also her parents house is at Pathari.(iii) Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu (P.W.No. 4) is the uncle of deceased Rukhsana.5 Shamina Sk.Salim is her mother.P.W.No. 7 Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil is residing just in front of the house of the appellant.P.W.No. 8 Sanjay Eknathrao Suryawanshi is also residing in front of the house of the appellant.(iv) When Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu (P.W.No. 4) was present at his residence, at the relevant time, his wife awaken him.He found the appellant at his residence in a frightened condition.The appellant requested him that he should accompany him at his residence.The appellant told him that, there was quarrel between him and his wife.Immediately, this witness reached to the residence of the appellant; where he found Rukhsana, wife of the appellant completely in a burnt condition and was lying in front of the kitchen table, in a kitchen room.(v) It is the case of the prosecution that, that time, Rukhsana made oral dying declaration to P.W.No. 4 Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 ::: 3/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw Kathu to the effect that, it is the appellant, who poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::(vi) Thereafter, he called his wife and asked her to put the clothes on the person of Rukhsana.Thereafter, he called his brother and his wife, who are the parents of Rukhsana.He also made telephonic call to Aarif Khan, Member of Municipal Council and requested him to make an arrangement for ambulance.On turn, Aarif gave telephonic call to one Shaharukh, driver of the Ambulance.Thereafter, he made call to one Shah and asked him to make arrangement of ambulance.Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu (P.W.No. 4) made telephonic call to Shahrukh (P.W.No.3), he came there with the ambulance.Initially, Rukhsana was taken to the Rural Hospital, Pathari however, Doctor was not available there and only compoundar was present there.Therefore, they took her to the Civil Hospital, Parbhani.She was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Parbhani.(ix) There is another dying declaration available on record which is at Exh.It is recorded by P.W.No. 1 Krushnarao Patil, who at the relevant time was serving as Judicial Magistrate, F.C., after completion of formalities of ascertaining the fact, whether the patient was in a condition to give her dying declaration.(xi) P.W.No.17 A.P.I. Uttam Keshvrao Tak took upto him the investigation of the said crime.Upon registration of the Crime, the Investigating Officer reached to the spot of incidence.He found the spot of incidence was the residence of the appellant at "Pathan Mohalla", Pathari.He seized various articles from the spot and panchnama was drawn in presence of the panch witnesses.Said panchnama is at Exh.(xii) During the treatment, Rukhsana died on 4th February, 2010 at 10.35 hrs.Accordingly, said fact was intimated by the hospital authority to Police Inspector, Pathari Police Station.(xiii) In view of the death of Rukhsana, offence punishable U/Section 307 of the I.P.Code was converted into offences punishable U/Section.s.302, 342 of the I.P.Code.During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer on the memorandum statement of the accused, seized his pant on 5th February, 2010 as per the seizure panchnama Exh.Post Mortem on the dead body of Rukhsana was conducted by the Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Parbhani - Dr. Shekhar Shyamrao Deshmukh.He found 100% burn injuries, which according to the Doctor conducting the post mortem, were anti mortem.Probable cause of death, according to the Doctor was, terminal cardio respiratory failure due to hypovolemic and septicemic shock due to 100% superficial to deep burns.His evidence reveals that, on the said date, Rukhsana was admitted in the hospital by her father Shaikh Salim.The medical paper of Rukhsana at Civil Hospital, Parbhani are proved through this witness.It is at Exh.[20] In pursuance to the said, immediately, P.W.No.1 Krushnarao Patil proceeded to the Civil Hospital, Parbhani.On reaching there, he ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 ::: 14/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw enquired, who is the Doctor there present and also informed that, he is there to record the statement of Rukhsana.He then reached to the burn ward.The appellant, who stands convicted for the offence punishable U/Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short, the I.P.Code) and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani on 4th August, 2011 in Sessions Case No.69 Of 2010, by this Criminal Appeal questioning the correctness of same conviction and sentence.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::2/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw [2] The prosecution case can conveniently be stated as under :-Even prior to the marriage, both were related to each other.(vii) Rukhsana was admitted in Civil Hospital, Parbhani on 31st January, 2010 at 2.35 a.m. as indoor patient.Medical Officer on duty, on admission of Rukhsana in the hospital has given M.L.C. report.Therefore, Police Head Constable - Anand Dhondopant Kurundkar with a desire to record the statement of said lady, went to the hospital and approached to the Medical Officer Dr. Mete.Dr. Mete examined her and found that, she was not in a position to give her statement.Thereafter, P.H.C. Kurundkar issued a letter to Taluka Magistrate for recording the statement of said patient.In the meantime, P.H.C. Anand Kurundkar received an information that patient has regained ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 ::: 4/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw consciousness thereafter, he went to Dr. Bhalerao, who was on duty at the relevant time.He went to the patient at 2.00 p.m. After examination by the Doctor, PHC-Anand Kurundkar recorded her statement.Said statement is at Exh.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::(viii) Naib Tahasildar - Prakash Vishwanathrao Ashtikar (P.W.No. 16) at the relevant time received a letter requesting him to record the statement of Rukhsana.Accordingly, he went there and recorded the dying declaration of Rukhsana.The said statement is at Exh.Thereafter, he ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 ::: 5/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw recorded the statement of maternal uncle of Rukhsana.The appellant / accused was arrested on 1st February, 2010 at 3.00 a.m.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::(xiv) The Investigating Officer after completing the entire investigation, filed Charge-Sheet in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, (F.C.), Pathardi, Dist.Parbhani, who found that, offence U/Section 302 of the I.P.Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, passed an order of committal on 14th July, 2010 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::6/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.(xv) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani on 25th July, 2010 framed Charge against the appellant / accused for the offences punishable U/Section.s.302, 342 of the I.P.Code.The appellant / accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the appellant, examined as many as 17 witnesses and closed its case.(xvi) The statement of appellant U/Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded.From the said statement and suggestions given to various prosecution witnesses, it appears that, defence of the appellant was that his wife received burn injuries in an accident.(xvii) After conclusion of trial and after appreciating the evidence, oral as well as documentary as available on the record, the learned Judge of court below found that, though the prosecution has failed to prove the charge U/Section 342 of the I.P.Code, prosecution has succeeded to bring home the guilt of accused / appellant in respect of offence punishable U/Section 302 of the I.P.Code and, therefore, the appellant was convicted.Hence, this Criminal Appeal.[3] We have heard Mr. Abhaysinh K. Bhosale, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar, leaned A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra, in extenso.With their able assistance, we have minutely gone through the Record & Proceedings of Sessions Case No.69 Of 2010 in order to re-appreciate the entire evidence, as brought on the record by the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::7/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.The learned counsel further submitted that, most of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses, therefore, their version to the effect that oral dying declaration made to them, as claimed by the prosecution, cannot be relied upon.[5] The learned counsel placed his reliance on the various decisions of this Court and also the Hon'ble Apex Court, to buttress his points.[6] Per contra, the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State strenuously urged before us that, the trial court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence, as appearing in the prosecution case, in its true perspective.She further submitted that, even on re-appreciation of entire evidence, finger of guilt is clearly shown towards the appellant, therefore, according to her, Criminal Appeal deserves dismissal.[7] In the present case, the time of occurrence is at 23.45 hrs.on 30th January, 2010 to 00.30 hrs.The place of occurrence is the house of the appellant.The spot panchnama Exh.No.28 is admitted by the appellant during the trial.[8] Rukhsana was admitted at Civil Hospital, Parbhani at 2.35 a.m. on 31/01/2010 which can be seen from the medical papers of Rukhsana available on record at Exh.During her treatment she succumbed to ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 ::: 8/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.P.W.No.13 Dr. Shekhar Deshmukh [M.O., Civil Hospital, Parbhani] conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Rukhsana.He found 100% burn.He has proved post mortem notes.Post Mortem report is at Exh.The probable cause of death is terminal cardio respiratory failure due to hypovolemic and septicemic shock due to 100% superficial to deep burns.Thus, it is very clear that, death of Rukhsana was unnatural.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::(ii) homicidal or (iii) accidental.Nor it is the defence of the appellant that she committed suicide.In that view of the matter, the possibility that, the Rukhsana committed suicide is firmly ruled out.[10] Now could it be accidental. ? Court is called upon to examine this possibility because the appellant has suggested; rather it is his specific defence that, the Rukhsana died due to accidental burn.The said defence of the appellant is clearly spelt out from the cross-examination of P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu, who is paternal uncle of deceased Rukhsana and maternal uncle of the appellant.So also, the appellant tried to establish the said fact during the cross-examination of P.W.No. 4 Shamina Sk.Salim, mother of the deceased.Moreover the appellant in his statement recorded U/Section 313 of the Code has also raised the said specific defence.Further the appellant has examined Dr. Suryakant Anandrao Deshmukh [M.O. of Civil Hospital, Parbhani] as defence witness.[11] Now let's scrutinize and examine the evidence as available on record to decide this question.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::9/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw DW 1 Dr. Suryakant Anandrao Deshmukh, who was serving as Medical Officer on 31st January, 2010 at Civil Hospital, Parbhani.Those are at Exh.On page No.1 of Exh.No. 83 the history of patient is shown as "accidental burn within two hours".The learned counsel for the appellant has heavily relied upon this entry to show that, it was the accidental death.Further according to the learned counsel, P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf Sk.Kathu has admitted in his cross-examination that there were burn injuries on the hands of the appellant.Thus, as per the appellant, when he tried to extinguish the fire, he suffered those burn injuries.In so far as noting in Exh.No.83 in respect of accidental burn is concerned, on the closure scrutiny of the evidence of D.W.No.1 Dr. Suryakant Deshmukh, it appears that, it is not much helpful to the appellant because though there is an entry, D.W.1 Dr. Suryakant Deshmukh was not sure as to who has given such history of the patient.Not only that, he has admitted in his cross-examination that, name of person, who has given said history is not there in Exh.Further in the said proved document at page No.193 of the record, which is part and parcel of Exh.No.83 there is note of 31/01/10 taken at 3.40 p.m. which shows that the patient has narrated homicidal burn.[12] In so far as the burn injuries appearing on the hands of the appellant are concerned, suggestion was given to P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf that those injuries are occurred since, he tried to extinguish the fire.This suggestion given by the learned defence counsel is denied by said witness.P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf is the first, amongst two persons, who reached at the spot.In fact, it is the appellant who went to his house and called him to his house.In so far as the injuries on the hands of the appellant, the defence ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 ::: 10/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw has brought on record during the cross- examination of P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf, who deposed "I say that, Rukhsana told me that, he was trying to press her mouth when she was raising shouts, I have not stated before police that, the appellant tried to press her mouth".Though this admission is tried to be brought on the record by defence, said omission was not put to the Investigating Officer by the defence when the Investigating Officer was in the witness-box.Therefore, said remained to be unproved.Further according to the defence as appearing in the statement recorded U/Section 313 of the Code, on the day of incidence, after finishing his work, the appellant returned to his house at 7.30 p.m. That time, his wife Rukhsana had been to the house of her mother.He asked his mother-in-law to send Rukhsana.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::Then he took meal in the house of his mother- in-law.Then he alongwith Rukhsana came to his house.Then in the mid night, he heard noise of Rukhsana from kitchen and found Rukhsana was burning.Now, when it was not the case of the prosecution nor it was defence even remotely that Rukhsana committed suicide and when it is specific defence of the appellant that, Rukhsana got burn injuries accidentally, this defence clearly show that, it cannot be accidental.According to the applicant on the said date when he returned to the house at 7.30 p.m., Rukhsana was not in the house but she was in the house of her his mother in law.He went there, not only that they had meals there and thereafter, they returned to their house and they slept.If that is so, there was no reason for Rukhsana go to the kitchen, that too, in the dead hours of the night.Therefore, it is very clear that, Rukhsana had not received burn injuries accidentally, as suggested by the appellant.[13] Now only possibility is that, the Rukhsana died due to homicidal burn.In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant to show that, he is the author of the burn injuries received by Rukhsana, prosecution has relied upon three written dying declarations, oral dying declaration ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 ::: 11/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw made to P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf and P.W.No.5 Shamina Sk.Salim and extra judicial confession made to P.W.No.7 Shaikh Khalil Sk.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::[14] Of three written dying declarations, first in time, is dying declaration made to P.W.No.14 P.H.C. B.No.233 - Anand Dhondopant Kurundkar.Said dying declaration is at Exh.On 31st January, 2010 this witness was attached to Police Out Post, Civil Hospital, Parbhani.At 2.50 a.m. Dr. Suryakant, Medical Officer gave M.L.C. to him that patient Rukhsana who has sustained 94% burn is brought to the hospital and is admitted in the burn Ward.On receiving of this information, P.W.No.14 P.H.C. Anand Kurundkar immediately proceeded to record her statement.He approached to Dr.Mete, who was on night duty.However, on examination, Dr. Mete opined that, Rukhsana is not in a position to give her statement, therefore, her statement was not recorded by P.W.No.14 P.H.C. Anand Kurundkar.[15] At about 1.30 to 1.45 p.m., P.W.No.14 P.H.C. Anand Kurundkar received information that, patient has regained consciousness and is in a position to talk.On receipt of this information, P.W.No.14 P.H.C. Anand Kurundkar immediately went to the burn ward, there he approached to Dr. Bhalerao, who was the Medical Officer.P.W.No.14 P.H.C.Anand Kurundkar expressed his desire to record the statement of Rukhsana.Accordingly, Dr. Bhalerao put an endorsement.Said endorsement is duly proved by Dr. Bhalerao which is at Exh.Thereupon, P.W.No.14 P.H.C.Anand Kurundkar started recording the statement of Rukhsana.In her statement, Rukhsana disclosed that, her marriage took place with the Shaikh Khaled s/o Shaikh Quadar (accused / appellant) about two years back.She further disclosed that, she was receiving ill treatment at the hands of her husband on the count that, she always use to go to her parental home and she is not good looking woman.In so far as actual incidence is concerned, Rukhsana ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 ::: 12/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw disclosed to this witness that, on 30th January, 2010 at 11.45 p.m. when they both were in the house, the appellant started beating to her and picked up a quarrel on the account that, she always used to visit her parental home.She further stated that, thereafter on 30th January, 2010 at 00.30 hrs.the appellant started abusing her and poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze.After recording the dying declaration, P.W.No.14 P.H.C. Anand Kurundkar read over the same to the declarant and obtained her thumb impression.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::[16] Thereafter, P.W.No.12 Dr. Amol Rustumrao Bhalerao, M.O., Civil Hospital, Parbhani again examined Rukhsana and put his endorsement that, during recording her dying declaration, Rukhsana was conscious.Said endorsement is at Exh.This is the first dying declaration.[17] In so far as second dying declaration is concerned, it is recorded by P.W.No.16 Naib Tahasildar - Prakash Vishwanathrao Ashtikar.He received a letter from Police Out Post of Civil Hospital, Parbhani for recording the dying declaration of Rukhsana.The said letter requesting him to record the statement of Rukhsana is at Exh.His evidence shows that, in pursuance to the said request, initially he went to the Police Out Post, Civil Hospital, Parbhani and from there, he alongwith Police Constable went to the Hospital.His evidence would further reveals that, he met there to P.W.No.15 Dr. Sandhyarani Narayan Doly.P.W.15 Dr. Sandhyarani examined the patient and opined that, Rukhsana is in a position to give her statement.Accordingly she put an endorsement to that effect.Said endorsement is duly proved and is at Exh.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::13/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw [18] Thereafter, PW 16 Prakash proceeded to record the dying declaration of Rukhsana.Rukhsana in her statement disclosed that, on 30th January, 2010 at 12 O'clock in the night hours, her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law were present alongwith her.That time, her husband was under the influence of liquor.He started beating her and started murmuring [cMcM d: ykxyk].That time, her sister-in-law brought kerosene, which was poured by her husband on her person and she was set ablaze by her husband.Then she was confined in the house and they left the house.That time, she raised hue & cry, therefore, neighbourers poured water on her person and thereafter she was admitted in the hospital by her parents.Thus, she made statement that she is having complaint against her husband - Khaled i.e. the Appellant, mother-in-law and sister-in-law.Then her thumb impression was obtained.The dying declaration recorded by this witness PW 16 Naib Tahasildar - Prakash is at Exh.Thereafter the patient was examined by P.W. No.15 Dr. Sandhyarani Doly, who found that, Rukhsana was in a condition to make her statement.Accordingly, Dr. Sandhyarani made an endorsement on the dying declaration.Said endorsement is at Exh.[19] The last written dying declaration is recorded by P.W.No.1 Krushnarao Patil, on 2nd February, 2010, who at the relevant time, was serving as 4th Joint Civil Judge, (Jr.Divn.) & Judicial Magistrate, (F.C.), Parbhani.He was directed by the learned District Judge - 1 Parbhani to record the statement of Rukhsana, who was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Parbhani.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::Two to three persons were present near the patient.Those were asked to leave the ward by this witness.Dr. Arhchana Gore, Medical Officer was present there.She examined Rukhsana and found that, patient was conscious and well oriented and able to give her statement.Said endorsement of Dr. Archana is at Exh.[21] P.W.No.1 Krushnarao Patil then started recording the dying declaration.Perusal of the said dying declaration would reveal that, said is in "Question-Answer form".Question No.5 is in respect of "How the incident happened.?" To this question put to her by P.W.No.1 Krushnarao Patil, Rukhsana replied that, at 10 O'clock in night hours, when she woke-up for drinking water; that time, she and her husband Khaled were present in the house.She went to drink the water.That time, her husband called her and asked to press his legs, therefore, she started pressing his legs.That time, Khaled poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze.In reply to question No.6, she replied that, her husband Khaled used to beat her daily.After recording the dying declaration, her thumb impression was obtained.The dying declaration recorded by P.W.No.1 Krushnarao Patil is at Exh.After recording of the said dying declaration, Dr.Archana Kishanrao Gore [P.W.18] again examined the patient and put her endorsement, which is duly proved by her to the effect that, Rukhsana was conscious and well oriented during recording her statement.Said endorsement is at Exh.[22] Thus, as observed above, we have three dying declarations.What should be the approach when there are multiple dying declarations.State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri.) 1599, which read thus :-::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::A perusal of both the dying declarations reveal that there are inter se variance.In the dying declaration at Exh. 24 Vimal had stated that the appellant, under the influence of liquor, used to beat her as he was of suspicious nature.She states that when she had asked him to take his dinner, the appellant had quarrelled with her and, therefore, in anger she had gone to sleep.While she was asleep, the appellant had poured kerosene on her-and had set her ablaze.In the dying declaration at Exh.27 Vimal had stated that in the evening she had sent the daughter of her neighbour for purchasing wheat, but as the said girl had not gone, she had herself gone and purchased wheat.According to her, the appellant, on his return, asked her as to why she had gone for purchasing wheat and what was the relationship between Vimal and the shopkeeper.The appellant then went out of the house and returned back at about 7.00 p.m. or 7.30 p.m. carrying a small plastic Can of kerosene.Vimal had asked her husband to take his dinner but her husband had said that he would not eat anything prepared by her as she was of lose character.On so saying her husband poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze.It would thus be seen that in respect of the incident there is a major variance though there is a common thread in both the dying declarations that it was the appellant who had set her ablaze.In cases resting on multiple written dying declarations, the Courts cannot pick and choose any one dying declaration.All the dying declarations have to be consistent in respect of material aspects of the incident.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::16/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw According to us, consistency is expected in multiple dying declarations in respect of the names and the number of accused, the prelude to the incident and the incident itself.In these two dying declarations, there is consistency in respect of the name and the number of accused.However, in respect of the prelude to the incident, there is variance.There is also variance in respect of the incident itself.The variance is apparent on perusal of the dying declarations and can be discerned from the perusal of the same.Therefore, according to us, no reliance can be placed on the two written dying declarations at Exhs.24 and 27, as acceptance of any one dying declaration necessarily renders the other as false.If in the dying declaration the truthfulness of the narration itself is rendered doubtful, no reliance whatsoever can be placed on the dying declaration.Merely because the overt act attributed to the accused is consistent in both the dying declarations would not make the dying declarations a reliable piece of evidence.The dying declaration has to pass all the tests of reliability as the declarant is not available for cross-examination.In cases where there are multiple dying declarations and acceptance of one dying declaration falsifies the other, the dying declarations have to be necessarily rejected.In our opinion, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the dying declarations at Exhs.[23] In the light of the observations made in foregoing paras and after scrutinizing the three dying declarations as available on the record in the present case, it is very clear that, these dying declarations reveal that, there is inter se variance.In the first dying declaration, it is found that, on 30th January, 2010 at 11.45 hrs.Rukhsana was assaulted by fist blows by the ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 ::: 17/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw appellant on the count that, she always used to visit her parents house.Upon giving closure look to Exh.No.47 [D.D. recorded by PHC-Anand Kurundkar], it appears that, she has given account of two incidence.First as narrated above and then secondly, on 31st January, 2010 at 00.30 hrs.Khaled put kerosene on her persona and set her ablaze.However, in the second dying declaration i.e. Exh.59 [ D.D. recorded by Naib Tahasildar::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::- Prakash ], we can notice that, she has stated about the presence of her sister-in-law and mother-in-law.Not only that, role as ascribed to sister-in- law that, she brought kerosene and then the appellant poured it on her person and set her ablaze.[24] While the last dying declaration viz. D.D. recorded by P.W.No.1 Krushnarao Patil gives altogether different account that, in the night when Rukhsana woke-up for drinking the water, the appellant called and asked to press his legs and that time, the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze.[25] Thus, three altogether different versions are appearing.[26] Further in so far as dying declaration Exh.No.59 [ D.D. recorded by Naib Tahasildar - Prakash ] is concerned, on minutely examining the same, it is clear that, it was not read over to Rukhsana.There is no endorsement to the effect that said dying declaration was read over to her and she admitted the contents of the same as true.Further even from ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 ::: 18/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw witness box, PW No.6 Prakash did not claim that, said dying declaration was read over to Rukhsana.When there is no endorsement on the dying declaration Exh.No.59 that scribe read over the contents of same to the declarant and she admitted the same that contents are written as per version, this court is at a loss as to really if the said statement was made over to PW 16 Prakash Vishwanathrao Ashtikar by Rukhsana.Therefore, it raises very grave suspicion about the same.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::[27] Thus, this court is of the considered view on re-appreciation of these three dying declarations made by Rukhsana as claimed by the prosecution that in view of the variance in respect of the incidence itself which can be discerned from perusal of the dying declarations, reliance cannot be placed on these dying declarations, as acceptance of any one dying declaration will necessarily render the others as false.In that view of the matter, we reject all these three written dying declarations.[28] The prosecution case is not over here.There are two oral dying declarations available on record, coupled with one extra judicial confession made by the appellant.[29] P.W.No.7 Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil is residing just in front of the house of the appellant.At the relevant time, he was watching the television, after having his dinner.At about 11.30 p.m. approximately, as claimed by him, he heard shouting.He heard noise of one lady.On hearing such noise, he came outside the house.That time, he heard, one lady is crying.Thereafter, the appellant came outside the house.He was asked, as to what had happened, that time, the appellant made extra judicial confession to him that, he has set his wife on fire.We would like to reproduce said part as appearing in his evidence herein-under :-::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::19/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw " I heard that, lady was crying.Thereafter, after opening the door Khaled came outside the house.I asked him, as to what had happened.Khaled told that, he has set his wife on fire.Thereafter, he had been to the house of his maternal uncle Yusuf.".[30] P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu also confirmed the fact that, Khaled (appellant) had been to his house.Further even the appellant in his statement recorded U/Section 313 of the Code has stated that, he had been to the house of his maternal uncle Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu.[31] P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf Sk.Kathu was awaken by his wife and that time, he found Khaled (Appellant) at his residence in a frightened condition.Khalead asked him to accompany to his residence.He told to Shaikh Yousuf that there was quarrel with his wife and his wife is burnt.Thereafter, both rushed to the house of the appellant.There, P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu saw Rukhsana, wife of the appellant, in a completely burnt condition and she was lying in front of kitchen table in a kitchen room.That time, Rukhsana informed to Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu, which can be termed as oral dying declaration.Said is reproduced herein-under :-" She told me that, Khaled caused her severe beating and set her on fire.She stated to him that, Khaled has poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire."[32] The second oral dying declaration is made to P.W.No.5 Shamina Sk.Salim, mother of Rukhsana.Said is as under :" She told me that, Khaled set her on fire and beat her."::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::20/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw [33] Now, this court proceeds to scrutinize these two dying declarations and extra judicial confessions to ascertain, as to whether they are truthful and whether they are free from any doubt.[34] Presence of Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil on the spot, as claimed by him, is most natural.He is residing just in front of the house of the appellant.He was watching television, after having his dinner.That time is not too late hours of the night by which we could exclude his presence.The reaction of Shaikh Khalil Sk.Jamil to ask the appellant when he opened the door as to "what had happened" is most natural one.That lends credence to the extra judicial confession made to him because it was most natural on the part of Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil to put such question to Khaled (appellant) because he reached there after hearing shouting of a lady.This part of his evidence is also corroborated by the version of PW 4 Shaikh Yusuf.[35] There is nothing on record to discredit the version of PW No.7 Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil.There is only a suggestion given to this witness that, he had no talk with the appellant, at that time.Said suggestion is denied by Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil (P.W.No.7).Further as observed, his presence would be most natural one on the spot.In absence of anything available on record, which will create slightest doubt and/or suspicious about the said extra judicial confession made by the appellant to this witness viz. Shaikh Khalil Shaikh Jamil, we are of the firm view that, the prosecution has proved the said fact.[36] Now, in so far as two oral dying declarations are concerned those are made to the close relatives.P.W.No.4 Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 ::: 21/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw is not only the uncle of deceased Rukhsana but he is maternal uncle of the appellant.No circumstances and/or events are brought on the record, through the cross-examination of PW No.4 Yusuf to discredit his version.On the contrary, his reaction after coming out side the house, when the Rukhsana made oral dying declaration to him of giving 5 to 6 slap blows to the appellant, is most natural reaction of a close relative.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::[37] One can't forget the fact that when initially, Khaled approached to him and disclosed him that, there was quarrel between him and his wife and his wife received burn injuries and he should accompany his house that time, he has not reacted angrily.This approach of this witness inspires a high degree of confidence in respect of the facts disclosed to him by Rukhsana.Further when he took Rukhsana to the hospital alongwith her parents in the ambulance, all the while, Rukhsana was shouting that, Khalead has set her on fire.Even to this, there is no iota of cross examination.Shouting in a ambulance by Rukhsana during her journey from her house to to the hospital that Khalead (Appellant) has set her on fire, is a circumstance which clearly points out finger of guilt towards the appellant, because naturally, Rukhsana in a seriously burnt condition, must be in great pains, it must be in her mind to disclose the name of person, who has made her position to that level.[38] Also making oral dying declaration in a seriously burnt condition to the mother by a daughter is most natural.In that view of the matter, we find that these two oral dying declarations can safely be accepted.Not only that, extra judicial confession which made by Khalel, which may be weak piece of evidence in isolation however, certainly said extra judicial confession can be a corroborative piece of evidence, corroborating to the oral dying declarations which were also made ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 ::: 22/22 cri.appeal 503.11 (Sk.Khaled Sk.Quader) 28.02.2014.sxw immediately after the occurrence to PW 4 Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu and P.W.No.5 Shamina Sk.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::[39] Therefore, on entire re-appreciation of the evidence, as found in the prosecution case, this court is rejecting three written dying declarations viz. Exh.47, 59 and 14 however, the oral dying declarations made to P.W. 4 Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Kathu and P.W.No.5 Shamina Sk.Hence, we proceed to pass the following order :-(i) Criminal Appeal No.503 Of 2011 is dismissed.(ii) Judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani on 4th August, 2011 in Sessions Case No.69 Of 2010 thereby convicting the appellant - Shaikh Khaled s/o Shaikh Quadar for the offence punishable U/Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, is hereby confirmed.Appeal dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:53:41 :::
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
170,235,953
It is alleged against the applicant that he went in a motorcycle to the house of the prosecutrix and knocked her door, she opened the door and thereafter, the applicant committed rape upon her.In the medico legal examination no internal injury was found to the prosecutrix.He is in custody since 20.10.2014 without any substantial reason.Consequently, he prays for bail.Learned G.A. opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge bina
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
17,024,361
He submits that the petitioners were arrested on 20.11.2018 and are in custody for about fifty days.He further submits that no purpose will be served in keeping the petitioners in custody atleast so far the question of investigation is concerned.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that charge sheet has not yet been submitted in this case.Referring to the First Information Report and the statements of the witnesses including those of the victim and the driver under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she submits that a prima facie case is clearly made out against the accused.I have heard the submissions of the learned advocates of the petitioners and the State and have perused the application and the case diary.Considering the gravity of the offence, the fact that charge sheet has not yet been submitted in the case, the identification of the petitioner no. 1 in T.I. parade and the role he allegedly played in commission of the offence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner no. 1 is rejected at this stage.In view of the facts that the petitioner no. 2 is also in custody for about fifty days and that he could not be identified in the T.I. parade, his prayer for bail is allowed.The petitioner no. 2 may be released on bail subject to the satisfaction to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagore on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 /- (Rupees Ten thousands) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local.The application for bail is partly allowed.(Jay Sengupta, J.) 3
['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,702,458
On the day of occurrence, viz. 4-6-1992, when the deceased was going on his cycle, the first accused hit him from behind with a Farsa as a result of which he died instantaneously.A person who came across the dead body, informed the police who registered a case.ORDER U.L. Bhat, C.J.The second accused in the charge sheet filed before the Sessions Court, Jabalpur, has filed this petition to quash the charge framed against him (along with the first accused), under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.According to the prosecution, there was a monetary transaction between the second accused and the deceased which led to misunderstanding and ill-feeling.On two occasions, the two accused went to the deceased's house and in his absence and in the presence of his mother, uttered threats against the deceased.A day before the occurrence, the two accused were heard discussing about doing away with the deceased.First accused was arrested and the weapon of offence was recovered on the basis of information furnished by him.Second accused was also implicated and final charge sheet was filed against him.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
170,246,291
5.Radesh Dhar Dwivedi10.Abijit Ashok Sawani20.Igor Totrov Lev25.Raymond John Tindall27.John Wilson Armstrong35.Hari Jeet Singh ... Petitioners/Accused 3 to37.. Vs ..G.R.Swaminathan^For Respondent : Mr.K.Chellapandian Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Crl.2.The factual matrix in this case as disclosed in the final reportfiled by the police is as follows:2.1.On 12.10.2013, the Indian Coast Guard Station Ship "Naikidevi"sensed the presence of a vessel in the Indian waters of the Bay of Bengal andestablished communication links with the said vessel.The name of the saidvessel was disclosed as "M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio".When the Indian CoastGuards questioned them, M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio admitted that they were inpossession of firearms in the ship.The Indian Coast Guard Station ShipNaikidevi ultimately located "M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio" which was anchored atLatitude 08 52' North and Longitude 078 26.7' East.Therefore,according to the prosecution (which is disputed by the accused) the placewhere "M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio" was anchored was very much within theterritorial waters of India.2.2.The Coast Guard Ship directed M.V.Seaman Guard Ohio to weigh anchor(which means to lift the anchor) and proceed to Tuticorin Port for furtherinvestigation by the Indian authorities.Thereafter, various investigatingagencies were alerted and a Joint Interrogation Team was constituted forinterrogating the Captain and the Crew of the ship.The Joint InterrogationTeam comprised officials from Indian Coast Guard, Customs, IntelligenceBureau, Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin, Q-Branch (a special unit of theState Police which deals with terrorists and extremists), Directorate ofRevenue Intelligence and Marine Police.The Interrogation Team has recordeda Minutes dated 12th October, 2013 which forms part of the police report.Itmay be relevant to extract the minutes verbatim:"MINUTES OF JOINT INTERROGATION ON MV SEAMAN GUARD OHIO12 OCT 20131400 Officers/Representatives from various security agencies assembledonboard MV Seaman Guard Ohio for joint interrogation.1410 Joint Interrogation started.The Master, Chief Officer and 2nd Officerof the ship, representatives of Indian Coast Guard, Customs, IB, Policeincluding the SP of Tuticorin, Q Branch, DRI and Marine police attended theinterrogation.(a)Master informed that the vessel had come to the position on instructionsfrom the company to top up provisions.There was no agent in Tuticorin andthe ship only received phone numbers of persons who were contacted.(b)Master and crew informed that the ship has received approximately 1.5 KLfuel in 10 drums from a fishing boat.They also confirmed that the due torough sea conditions, the boat did not come alongside and the fuel drums weretied to ropes, dumped in water and pulled collected by the vessel.(c)Chief security guard explained the method of embarkation/disembarkation ofsentries as well as arms/ammunition from ports and armories respectively.The company Advanfort owns 03 vessels.Ohio is positioned in the East,Arizona in the west and third vessel is in dock.The arms come from the UK.Sentries and arms are embarked/disembarked on client vessels as per theschedule given by the company.However the authorisation/license to hold armand ammunition onboard was not held.The guard informed that efforts arebeing made to obtain the same from the company.(d)Police proceeded to muster the arms and ammunition onboard against theRecord of Arms and Ammunition handed over by the Chief security guard.(e)Immigration representatives checked and verified all passports and Seamanidentity cards of the 10 crew and 25 guards.(f)Other documents were checked by IB, Customs and police.(g)The various representatives also visited the compartments of the ship forexamination/inspection.1600 Representatives of Indian Navy arrive.1700 Dispersal of attendees started."2.3.During the course of interrogation, it came to light that the shiphad received 1.5 KL of fuel from a fishing boat while it was in anchor.TheJoint Interrogation Team continued interrogation on 13.10.2013 and theCentral Agencies perhaps felt that they had no substantial role to play andtherefore, they handed over the case to the local police.A minute was alsodrawn on 13.10.2013 in which it was noted that the vessel was carrying armsfor which they did not have any authorisation.On 13.10.2013 Shri.R.Narendran, Assistant Commandant BoardingOfficer, Indian Coast Guard Ship Naikidevi lodged a written complaint withthe Tharuvaikulam Marine Police Station, Tuticorin, stating the manner inwhich the vessel was located by the Indian Coast Guard while it was founddrifting at position Latitude 08 52' North and Longitude 078 26.7' East on12th October, 2013 at 03.30 hours.The complaint disclosed the presence ofarms and ammunition in the vessel and also the names of the Captain and Crewwith their national identities and passport details.R.Nanda Kumar, Assistant Commandant handed over the vesselto the Inspector of Police, Marine Police Station along with the Crew andGuards for further investigation.2.5.By proceedings dated 15.10.2013, the Director General of Police,Tamil Nadu, transferred the investigation of the case from TharuvaikulamMarine Police Station to the Q-Branch C.I.D. The Inspector of Police, Q-Branch C.I.D., Tuticorin, took up the investigation of the case on 16.10.2013and seized 35 firearms, 5682 ammunition and 102 magazines that were kept inthe vessel without any document for such possession.On 18.10.2013, theInspector of Police, Q-Branch C.I.D. arrested Accused 4, 6 to 37 and accused3 [Captain of the Ship] and 5 were allowed to be in the vessel for itsmaintenance as per their request.On 19.10.2013, A3 [Captain of the Ship]and A5 were also arrested and later on remanded to judicial custody.The Investigating Officer alsoseized the Deck Log Book, GPS Log Book, the CUP Digital Recorder from thevessel for the purpose of further investigation.It may be relevant to state here that even inthe G.P.S. Log Book that was seized from the ship which forms part of thedocument relied upon by the prosecution, it is mentioned in page 246 asfollows:"19.00 hours Fishing vessel stayed 10 meters away with one mooring ropefastened as torn.20.40 hours Received 10 drums of diesel Oil and fishing vessel cast off."2.7.The Police also seized one litre of diesel from the ten barrelsthat were kept on the deck.Therefore, the Q-Branch police wanted to findout who were the persons who had provided fuel to this vessel andinvestigation was taken up in that direction.During the course ofinvestigation, the police tracked down one Mariya Anton [A38] who is theowner of a company by name Ashok Marine Exclusive Ship Repairs (Ship Repairand Ship Chandelier) in Tuticorin and who is a shipping agent for a fewvessels that visit Tuticorin Port.According to the police, one Munithevan(A43) who is the owner of Vikaline Marine Company in Chennai and his brotherVimal [A44] had contacted Mariya Anton [A38] and had requested him to sendprovisions and fuel to a foreign ship stranded at Tuticorin coast.The police arrested Mariya Anton(A38), Vijay (A39) his brother Ranjithkumar (A40), Murugesan (A41) theemployee of Mariya Anton, Selvam (A42) who went on an aborted mission to givefoodstuffs.Munithevan(A43), Vimal (A44) and Vinodh (A45) absconded and itis now reported that they have surrendered before the Court.AdvantfortCompany, the owner of the Vessel is the first accused and one Frajallah, theowner of the Company is the second accused.A3 to A13 are the Captain andCrew of the Ship.A14 to A37 are the Security Guards who were present in theShip.A38 to A45 are persons in India who supplied food and fuel to theShip.It anchored at the Outer Port Limit of TuticorinPort and was waiting for supplies.On plodding through the evidence collected by the Police, I do not findany material in this regard.Consequently, M.P.Nos.1&2/2014 in Crl.R.C(MD)No.204/2014 and M.P.Nos.1,2&4/2014 in Crl.(Originally registered at Tharuvaikulam Marine Police Station, ThoothukudiDistrict)PRAYER Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C r/w.401 ofCriminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the entire records pertaining tothe order taking cognizance passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District in P.R.C.No.1 of 2014 vide his order dated02.01.2014 and set aside the said order as well as the charges referred totherein in respect of the petitioner.!For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand$For Respondent : Mr.K.Chellapandian Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6719 of 20141.Dudinik Valentyn Captain of Vessel2.Paul David Dennish Towers4.Lalit Kumar GugungState represented by,Inspector of Police,Q Branch C.I.D.,Tuticorin District(Crime No.18 of 2013)Marine Police StationTharuvaikulam. ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, praying to call for the records relating to theproceedings in P.R.C.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial MagistrateNo.I, Thoothukudi, and quash the same.!For Petitioners : Mr.E.K.Nanda Kumar Senior Advocate assisted by Dr.Thushara James for M/s.side):COMMON ORDER Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6719 of 2014 has been filed by A3 to A37 to quash thefinal report in P.R.C.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial MagistrateNo.I, Tuticorin and Crl.R.C.(MD)No.204 of 2014 has been filed by A38challenging the cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin,in P.R.C.No.1 of 2014 on the final report filed by the respondent police.Following points were ascertained.Vijay (A39) wanted to know the exact location of the ship.Vimal(A44) the younger brother of Munithevan (A43) wanted an e-mail ID for him tosend the particulars as to the location of the ship.Thereafter, Vijay[A39] and Vimal [A44] returned to the shore.While Mariya Anton [A38] wascontemplating delivery of foodstuffs to the ship, he received informationthat the Coast Guard have taken control of the ship and that it may not benecessary for him to send the provisions.4.The final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.I,Tuticorin, who took cognizance of the offences that are stated in the finalreport challenging which Mariya Anton (A38) has filed Crl.When the accused were produced before the Magistrate, copies of thefinal report and documents were furnished to them and thereafter, A3 to A37have filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6719 of 2014 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashingthe prosecution.5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learnedAdditional Advocate General for the Government.6.Mr.E.K.Nandakumar, learned Senior Advocate representing the counselon record for A3 to A37 made the following submissions:The complaint has tobe read as a whole.The learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the 161(3)statement of Mr.J.Senthil Kumar, Deputy Director, MMD, V.O.C. Port,Tuticorin, who has stated as follows:"I am working as the Dy.At thefirst blush, this argument did sound attractive, but under Section 10(C) ofthe Essential Commodities Act, there is a presumption of culpable mentalstate.Though police confessions are inadmissible inevidence, in order to satisfy my conscience, I went through the policeconfessions also and found no materials to even vaguely suggest that thisShip had come into the territorial waters of this Country for ulteriorpurpose.In fine, I find that the prosecution of the accused for theoffences under the Arms Act, 1959 is not maintainable.Hence, theprosecution of the petitioners in both petitions under the Arms Act, 1959 isquashed.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition and the Criminal RevisionCase stand partly allowed.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,Thoothukudi,Thoothukudi District.The Public ProsecutorMadurai Bench of Madras High Court.
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
17,025,290
Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Dehat, District Bhind, in connection with Crime No.214/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 294, 147, 148, 149, 506 and 307 of the IPC.Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that he along with other accused persons, owing to previous enmity, not only abused him but also fired him through his country made pistol, though it did not hit the complainant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated.The charge-sheet has been filed and no further custodial interrogation is required.No injury has been caused to anyone due to the alleged gunshot, therefore, no offence under section 307, IPC is made out against the applicant.as per rules.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVASTAVA 2019.07.08 18:47:53 +05'30'
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
170,259,132
No.1/State.This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents for arresting the respondents No.2 and 3 and filing the charge sheet in Crime No.291/2018 registered at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Section 406, 34 of IPC.The Court accordingly directed the police to expedite and complete the investigation within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.The said order of the High Court is impugned in these appeals.* * *The impugned order is a nullity and liable to be set aside only on that score.******* **********
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
170,263,224
Shri Nitin Mangal, Advocate for the complainant.I.A. No. 22041/2020 an application filed under Sec. 301 (2) of the Cr.P.C is taken up considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.Shri Nitin Mangal, Advocate is permitted to assist public prosecutor.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 27.11.2019 by Police Station Dehat Shivpuri, District Shivpuri, in connection with Crime No.337/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, 323 of the IPC.2019 and charge-sheet has already been filed.Applicant does not bear any criminal record.It is further submitted that allegations over the applicant is infliction of lathi blows over the members of opposit party, but from the medical report it appears that only Pawan (injured witness) sustained some lathi blows over his elbow and hand and injuries are simple in nature.Therefore, looking to the allegations supported by medical evidence, this case be considered for bail.Two deceased Deepak and Prem Singh received gun shot injuries, out of which, Prem Singh recieved stab injury.He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial and would not be a 2 MCRC-45611-2020 souce of embarrassment/harassment or threat to the complainant party and shall not move in the vicinity of complainant party and shall not try to contact them through any mode.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that on the basis of omnibus allegations applicant was instrumental in inflicting injuries to the members of opposite party, therefore his application be dismissed.Learned counsel for the applicant also opposed the prayer on the basis of allegations and submitted that deceased Prem Singh also sustained same injuries of lacerated wounds which were the result of infliction of lathi blows.Besides that Lathi Ex. (G) has been seized from the possession of the applicant in which blood stains are present and same appears to be related to the deceased injured.He prays for dismissal of application.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them.Considering the period of custody as well as the fact that applicant does not bear any criminal record and looking to the allegations where deceased succumbed due to gun shot injuries/stab wounds prima facie, this court intends to give benefit of doubt to the applicant Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.It is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) along with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; and Application stands allowed and disposed of.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible for the office of this Court.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE ar ABDUR RAHMAN 2020.11.25 11:44:12 +05'30'
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
170,271,162
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR registeredin Crime No.91 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police.2.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, thefirst respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2018 for theoffence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 427 and 506(ii) IPC andSection 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 and in order to quash the same,the present petition has been filed.3.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.Ramu, theSub Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District, ispresent.The defacto complainant and the petitioners are present and theiridentifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to theconfirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Additional PublicProsecutor through Mr.Ramu, the Sub Inspector of Police, Melur PoliceStation, Madurai District.Learned counsel appearing for the parties alsoendorsed the identity of their respective parties.4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for thefirst respondent submitted that investigation in Crime No.91 of 2018 ispending.8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on thebasis of the compromise entered into between the parties.The jointcompromise memo filed on 10.07.2018 shall form part of this order.9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submittedthat the petitioners are willing to contribute some amount to the DistrictLegal Services Authority, Pudukottai under the Head ?Environmental Fund? topreserve the environment.Hence, each petitioner is directed to remit a sumof Rs.2,000/- (Total sum of Rs.10,000/-) as costs within a period of twoweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by way of anindividual/collective Demand Draft drawn in favour of the District LegalServices Authority, Pudukottai, who shall receive the said amount as?Environmental Fund? and make use of the said amount for the purposes mentioned in the order passed in CRP (NPD) No.1643 of 2010 on 20.06.2018 [D.Govindasamy Vs.L.Ganesh Naidu (Deceased) and 2 others].A report in this regard shall be sent by the District Legal Services Authority, Pudukottai tothe Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai,mentioning clearly the amounts spent towards the purposes mentioned in theabove order and the balance amount left etc., Consequently,Crl.1.The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District.
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
148,007,263
In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Kandi P.S. Case No.597 of 2016 dated 26.7.2016 under Sections 448/354 /354A/354B/323/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code And In the matter of : Afroja Bibi @ Mafroja Bibi ...Petitioner.Mr. Navanil De, Ms. S. Biswas, Ms. A. Roy ...for the Petitioner.The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
148,012,661
1] The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Warora in Sessions Case 1/2014, by and under which, the::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:04 ::: apeal163.16.J.odt 2 appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to payment of fine of Rs.500/- and is further convicted for offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to payment of fine of Rs.500/-.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:04 :::4] The prosecutrix lodged report at Police Station Warora on 04.11.2013, the gist of which was that she was residing with her husband in village Mahadoli.She and her husband earn livelihood by doing labour work.Her husband had gone to Madhya Pradesh on 02.11.2013 along with the father of one Bhujade who was to receive some medical treatment.The prosecutrix was alone in the house.She was having meals when at 10:00 p.m. or thereabout, the accused came to her house to give her the labour charges payable to her husband.The accused made himself comfortable.He had brought liquor which he poured in a glass and forcibly made the prosecutrix to consume liquor.The accused undressed the prosecutrix and subjected her to sexual intercourse.The prosecutrix resisted and the accused assaulted her.The prosecutrix started shouting and::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:04 ::: apeal163.16.J.odt 4 the accused pressed her mouth.In the morning on 03.11.2013 at 07:00 a.m. the mother of one Birkha came to the house, the prosecutrix was not wearing any clothe, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to the mother of Birkha.Birkha's mother helped the prosecutrix to wear clothes and left.The husband of the prosecutrix returned at 08:30 p.m. on 03.11.2013 to whom the prosecutrix narrated the incident.The prosecutrix's husband and the prosecutrix went to the police patil to whom the incident was narrated.The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "accused") is acquitted of offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC.2] Heard Shri D.A. Sonwane, learned Advocate appointed for the appellant and Shri H.R. Dhumale, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.3] Shri D.A. Sonwane, learned Advocate for the accused submits that the evidence on record would suggest that the sexual intercourse was consensual and that the prosecutrix cried foul only because her husband came to know of the incident from the villagers.Per contra, Shri H.R. Dhumale, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State contends that consent,::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:04 ::: apeal163.16.J.odt 3 if at all, was given when the prosecutrix was not in a position to understand the nature and consequences of the act due to intoxication and the prosecution has established offence punishable under Section 375 of the IPC in view of the provisions of Section 375 fifthly.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:04 :::The police patil advised the prosecutrix to lodge report.The police report was lodged.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:04 :::5] P.W.4 Manorama Bhujade to whom, according to the prosecutrix, the incident was narrated in the morning of 03.11.2003, has not supported the prosecution on material aspects.However, P.W.4 has not been declared hostile.P.W.4 has deposed that the prosecutrix was residing in the cattle shed of one Raju Vaidya.P.W.4 had gone to fetch cow-dung from the cattle shed of Raju Vaidya at 08:00 a.m. The prosecutrix was weeping.P.W.4 asked the prosecutrix as to what happened.The prosecutrix was wrapping clothes.The prosecutrix asked P.W.4 for tea which::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:04 ::: apeal163.16.J.odt 5 was provided to her.She denies that the prosecutrix was not able to stand and that there were no clothes on her person.She states that the prosecutrix did tell her that she was beaten by one Sherya.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:04 :::In the cross-examination, P.W.4 admits that the prosecutrix and she did not understand each others language and that the prosecutrix conveyed that she needed tea by sign.She admits that other than asking for tea the prosecutrix did not tell her anything.She admits that the prosecutrix and her husband are habituated to consume of liquor.She admits that she did not ask the prosecutrix as to why she was crying.She admits that the incident occurred in winter and that the prosecutrix had a blanket wrapped on her person when P.W.4 saw her.She admits that the prosecutrix was weeping due to cold.6] The evidence of P.W.4 would reveal that she has not supported the prosecution inasmuch as she has denied that the prosecutrix narrated the incident of forcible sexual intercourse to which she was subjected by the accused.She has gone out of the way to support the accused by admitting that the prosecutrix was::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:04 ::: apeal163.16.J.odt 6 weeping due to cold.However, she does admit that the prosecutrix conveyed to her that one Sherya assaulted the prosecutrix.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:04 :::He has deposed that when he returned from Madhya Pradesh, the prosecutrix narrated the incident.The suggestions given to the said witness would reveal that the defence is that the sexual intercourse, if any, is consensual.It is brought out in the cross-examination that he came to know of the incident from the villagers.He denies the suggestion that the accused is falsely implicated to avoid defamation of the prosecutrix.8] P.W.6 Dr. Vishal Pise, who examined the prosecutrix and issued medical certificate Exh.29 has deposed that he noticed abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm on left side of temporal bone caused by hard and blunt object.It is elicited in the cross-examination that the prosecutrix had no injuries on her internal parts.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:05 ::: apeal163.16.J.odt 7 9] In response to question 22 in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused states that he is falsely implicated since the accused had an altercation with the employer of the prosecutrix.However, the trend and tenor of the cross-examination would suggest that the defence is not disputing that the accused established sexual relationship with the prosecutrix.The defence is also not disputing that the prosecutrix consumed liquor.The bone of contention is that according to the prosecutrix she was forced to consume liquor and the sexual intercourse was against her will while according to the accused after consuming liquor, the sexual intercourse which followed was consensual.P.W.4 Manorama Bhujade, despite her attempt to support the defence, corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 to the extent that it was narrated to her by P.W.1 prosecutrix that the accused assaulted her.P.W.4 further states that when she went to the cattle shed, the prosecutrix was weeping.In response to a suggestion in the cross-examination, P.W.4 agrees that Laxmibai was weeping due to cold.The evidence of P.W.4 Manorama is partly reliable and partly unreliable.The court must separate the grain from the chaff.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:05 ::: apeal163.16.J.odt 8 What can be gathered from the evidence of P.W.4 is that the part of testimony that the prosecutrix narrated the assault by accused and that she was weeping corroborates the evidence of the prosecutrix.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:05 :::10] The evidence of the prosecutrix is also corroborated by the medical evidence.The prosecutrix is a married woman and the sexual contact was established when she had concededly consumed alcohol.The absence of any visible sign of injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix is of little significance.The injury noticed in the medical examination corroborates the evidence of the prosecutrix that she was beaten by the accused.11] The defence is that the sexual intercourse was consensual.The trend and tenor of the cross-examination would suggest that the endeavour of the accused was to bring on record that since the husband of the prosecutrix (P.W.2) came to know of the incident from villagers, the prosecutrix falsely claimed that she was raped.The defence is not probablized even on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.Concededly, there was no::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:05 ::: apeal163.16.J.odt 9 witness to the accused coming to the house of the prosecutrix or leaving the house.There was no reason for the prosecutrix to nurture an apprehension that the sexual intercourse with the accused would be in public domain.P.W.2 Virendra, who is the husband of the prosecutrix has deposed that the incident was disclosed to him by the prosecutrix.The admission that he came to know from the villagers that P.W.4 Manorama Bhujade saw the prosecutrix in naked condition is not inconsistent with the testimony that when he returned home from Madhya Pradesh the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to him.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:05 :::12] Even if it is assumed that the defence of the accused deserves serious consideration, the obstacle in the way of the defence is that the consent, if at all, is not valid since the evidence would suggest that due to intoxication the prosecutrix was not in a position to understand the consequences and implications of her actions.The suggestion given by the defence is that the prosecutrix was seen in naked condition by P.W.4 Manorama.The fact that the prosecutrix was not in a position to wear her clothes and was found naked in the morning would suggest that::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:05 ::: apeal163.16.J.odt 10 she was intoxicated.The consent, under such circumstances, is no consent in the eyes of law and the finding to that effect recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, is unexceptionable.13] It is well settled that conviction can be based even on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix.In the present case, the testimony of the prosecutrix is corroborated by medical evidence of assault and to a certain extent by the testimony of P.W.4 who saw the prosecutrix in naked condition and weeping.14] On a holistic appreciation of evidence on record, I do not find any serious infirmity in the judgment and order impugned.The conscious of the court is satisfied that the prosecution has established offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.However, the prosecution has not established the ingredient of Section 452 of IPC in as much as there is no cogent evidence on record to show that the accused committed house trespass intending to commit any offence.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:05 ::: apeal163.16.J.odt 11 15] In the result, while acquitting the accused offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC, I maintain the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:05 :::The conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 376 of IPC is affirmed.17] The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of in the above terms.JUDGENSN ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 02:18:05 :::
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
148,016,073
The deceased in this case was one Mr.Selvakumar.He was a lorry driver by profession.P.W.1 is his nephew.During the relevant time, P.W.1 was a lorry cleaner by profession.In those days, the deceased was driving the lorry bearing Reg.TN 30 L 2526 in which P.W.1 was working as a cleaner.On 28.11.2010, the deceased and P.W.1 started their journey in the lorry from Salem to go to Andhra Pradesh.The lorry was fully loaded with materials.The lorry was proceeding via Manjawadi Kaalvai.At around 11.30 p.m., the deceased stopped the lorry and went to Vellaiamman temple.Both of them had darshan in the temple and then started the journey around 03.30 a.m. When the lorry was nearing Nonanganur branch road, two persons were standing by the side of the road and they gestured to the deceased to stop the lorry.One of them was wearing a khaki shirt and black pant.The 3/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.267 of 2017 other one was wearing ladies nighty and covered the face with a kerchief.P.W.1 and the deceased believed the person in nighty clad was a woman.Stopping the lorry by the side of the road, the deceased got down from the lorry and went with those two persons.He asked P.W.1 to remain in the lorry cabin itself.Approximately after an hour, two persons came to the lorry.One among them was the one who earlier accompanied the deceased (P.W.1 has identified him as the first accused).These two persons got into the cabin of the lorry and searched for money in the cabin and other places, but nothing was found.Then, they snatched away the cell phone of P.W.1 and his silver waist chord rope at knife point.Then, by force, took him to a nearby place.The said place was filled with bushes.There P.W.1 found the deceased lying down and his hands and legs were tied with nylon ropes.He also noticed injuries on the head and chest of the deceased.The first accused warned P.W.1 not to disclose anything to anyone.They further warned him that he would also be killed in the event he discloses the same to anyone.Then, they took him to a distance of one kilometer.Two persons, 4/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.267 of 2017 who were standing at the place where the deceased was laying also accompanied them.The person, who was wearing nighty all through removed the nighty and it came to light that the said person was a male (P.W.1 has identified the second accused as the one who was in the nighty).Then, at a distance of about one kilometer, they allowed P.W.1 to slip away from the said place.2.4. P.W.1, escaped from the place and went to a tea shop situated near Nonanganur branch road and informed the people there about the occurrence.He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar-Ex.P.2 and a 5/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.267 of 2017 rough sketch-Ex.P.16 in the presence of witnesses.P.10 to P.12 are the seizure mahazars.P.W.11 is the lorry driver.10/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.267 of 2017 P.W.13 is the chemical analyst through whom Exs.P.13 and P.18 were marked.As per the prosecution version, on 28.11.2010 at about 11.30 a.m., the charged accused 1 and 2 along with the deceased accused Raja @ Kattu Raja and juvenile accused Arulmani, who wearing nighty were standing on the Salem to Andhra Pradesh main road and they stopped the lorry driven by the deceased and snatched away the cell phone of P.W.1 and his silver waist chord rope at knife point and thereafter criminally intimidated the witness P.W.1-Jegadeesh.P.W.7 is a photographer.10. P.W.8 is a finger print expert.He has stated that at the request P.W.15, he went to the place of occurrence and examined the lorry in question thoroughly and from the cabin of the lorry, he lifted three chance fingerprints.The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.39 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.One Mr.Raja @ Kattu Raja was also an accused as per the police report, but he died before framing of charges.The second accused in this case was one Mr.By judgment dated 26.10.2016, the trial Court convicted both A.1 and A.2 for the offences under Sections 394 and 302 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 394 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted both A.1 and A.2 from all the other three charges.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant 2/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Then all of them came to the place of occurrence and found the deceased dead.P.W.1 thereafter went to Pappireddypatty police station and made a complaint on 29.01.2010 at 07.00 a.m. Ex.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.P.15 is the F.I.R. In the complaint, P.W.1 mentioned that the assailants were four in numbers who can be identified.P.W.15 took up the case for investigation.He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon and forwarded the body for post-mortem.2.6. P.W.14-Dr.S.Angayarkanni conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 29.01.2010 and she found the following injuries:“1) A lacerated wound over the left frontal area 1.5 cms above the left eyebrow measuring 3x2.5 cms x bone deep with surrounding contusion.(2) A lacerated wound over the left frontal area 4 cms above wound No.1 measuring 3.5x0.50x0.25 cms with surrounding contusion.(3) A lacerated wound over the left frontal area 3 cms above wound No.2 measuring 2.5x0.50x0.50 cms with surrounding contusion.(4) A lacerated wound over right fronto temporal region 3 cms above and behind the either end of right eyebrow measuring 3x0.50x0.25 cms.(5) A lacerated wound over the mucosal surface of left side of the lower lip measuring 0.5cms x lineally, 0.75 cms 6/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.267 of 2017 lineally on dissection, bruising of the tissues underneath the tip of the nose, upper and lenear lip measuring 8x5 cms noted.Fracture of the tip of the nasal septum noted and flattering of the nose noted.Dark reddish brown abrasion noted (a) inter end of left eyebrow 1x0.5 cm (b) front of the nose 2x0.5 cms.(6) Findings: Finger and toe nails found blue and flattening of nose noted.(7) Head: subscalp contusion noted near the left frontotemporo parietal region measuring 4x3cm, over the left fronto temproparental region measuring 5x4 cms.Cranial vault and dural memberance – intact.Brain c/s congested.Chambers contained fluid blood, valves, corneas and great vessels patent.Lungs c/s congested.(9) Abdomen – stomach contains about 15 ml of brown coloured fluid with no specific odour.Liver, Spleen and Kidneys c/s congested.Bladders – empty.External genitalia – no injuries made out.Pelvics and spinal column – intact.” Ex.P.14 is the post-mortem certificate.She gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to smothering.7/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.P.W.15 during the course of investigation, on 8 31.01.2010, on the Harur to Salem main road, arrested Mr.Raja @ Kattu Raja.The first accused Mr.Gunasekaran and the second accused Lakshmanan were also arrested.On such arrest, all the three gave independent voluntary confession one after the other.Mr.Raja @ Kattu Raja in his confession, disclosed the place where he had hidden a suri knife, a cell phone, a silver waist chord rope, bloodstain pant and a kaki colour full hand shirt.Similarly, the first accused Mr.Gunasekar in his confession, disclosed the place where he had hidden a suri knife, cell phone, a silver waist chord rope and a jeans pant.The second accused in his confession has disclosed the place where he had hidden an arruval, nokia cellphone, a pant and a shirt.P.W.15 recovered all the material 8/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.267 of 2017 objects in three different mahazars.On returning to the police station, P.W.15 forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand.At his request, test identification parade was conducted by the learned Magistrate, in which, P.W.1 identified these two accused.At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination.On completing the investigation, P.W.15 laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed as many as five charges against accused 1 and 2, as detailed below :Serial Number Charge(s) Charge(s) framed of charge framed against under Section 1 A1 & A2 364 of IPC 2 A1 & A2 365 of IPC 3 A1 & A2 394 of IPC 4 A1 & A2 394 r/w 397 of IPC 5 A1 & A2 302 of IPC The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, 9/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.267 of 2017 as many as 15 witnesses were examined, 18 documents were marked and 18 material objects were produced.3. P.W.1 is the sole eye-witness, who said to have seen the occurrence while P.W.2 is the widow of the deceased.P.2-Observation Mahazar.P.W.4 is the tea shop owner with whom P.W.1 had conveyed the message of what he saw and sought his help.P.W.5 is the Panchayat President of Kalipatti village.P.W.6 is the Head Constable and P.W.7 is the photographer and they are the persons engaged by the Investigating Officer.P.W.8 is the fingerprint expert.The Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the identification parade was examined as P.W.9 and P.W.10 is the Village Administrative Officer, who had attested the arrest of the accused, recorded the confession statement and also deposed regarding the recovery under Exs.The confession statement alleged to have been given by the accused Raja @ Kattu Raja was marked as Ex.The confession statements alleged to have been given by the accused 1 and 2 were marked as Exs.P.8 and P.9 respectively.During the course of committing decoity, the accused have caused the death of the lorry driver namely, Selvakumar and hence, they are charged under Sections 364, 365, 394 r/w.397 IPC.The case against the juvenile has been split up and one of the accused Raja @ Kattu Raja died before framing of the charge and hence, the trial was conducted as against both the accused 1 and 2 namely, Kumar @ Udaya Kumar and Lakshmanan.11/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.267 of 2017On a close scanning and scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1, he is the cleaner, who accompanied the deceased Selvakumar in the said lorry and he has given a vivid picture about the entire occurrence.P.W.1 deposed regarding lodging of the complaint to the police and also identified the accused in the test identification parade conducted by the learned Magistrate and during trial in the Court as well.As stated supra, P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased, who has not witnessed the occurrence.P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of the deceased and also the attestor of the observation mahzar and rough sketch.P.W.4, is the tea shop owner at the Nonanganur branch road.According to him, at around 04.30 a.m. one person came to the tea shop and told him that his maternal uncle was killed by somebody.He has stated that at that time one person came to the tea shop and told that his maternal uncle was killed by somebody.He went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body.12/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.267 of 2017The Independent witnesses viz., P.Ws.4 and 5 are the first persons, who have heard about the occurrence from P.W.1 at the earliest point of time.Their version is to the point about the presence of P.W.1 at the early hours of the date of occurrence viz., at 4.30 a.m. in the tea shop and he had conveyed about the occurrence and he went along with P.W.1 and saw the dead body at the place of occurrence lend credence to the version of P.W.1 assumes significance.9. P.W.6 is the head of the sniffer dog squad, he has stated that he took the sniffer dog to the place of occurrence and the said attempt proved futile.Out of the same, one tallied with the 13/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.267 of 2017 fingerprint of the deceased.The other two were photographed and later on compared with the admitted fingerprint of Mr.Raja @ Kattu Raja.It was found that the fingerprint of Mr.Raja @ Kattu Raja tallied with the chance fingerprint lifted from the lorry.P.W.9, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur, has spoken about the test identification parade conducted.Mr.Raja @ Kattu Raja, the first accused Mr.Gunasekar and the second accused Mr.Lakshmanan were put up for test identification parade.In the test identification parade, P.W.1 identified all the three correctly assumes significance.12. P.W.12-Mr.Selvam also participated in the test identification parade and identified all the three accused.However, he turned hostile during trial and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.10, the Village Administrative Officer, has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch at 14/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.267 of 2017 the place of occurrence and also the arrest of Mr.Raja @ Kattu Raja and the arrest of A.1 and A.2 and also the consequential recoveries of material objects from out of the disclosure statements made.P.W.11, a driver in a different lorry has stated that he saw the deceased and P.W.1 lastly at Vellaiamman temple on the day of occurrence.It is relevant to mention the evidence of P.W.11-Kumar that he is the driver of another lorry who could clearly depose that he saw the deceased as alive and P.W.1 lastly at Vellaiamman temple prior to the time of occurrence on the same night and the same lends support to the prosecution theory that P.W.1 has accompanied the deceased on the date of occurrence in the Lorry from Salem to Andhra Pradesh.P.W.13 a scientific expert has spoken about the chemical examination conducted on the material objects and he found that there were bloodstains on the material objects.P.W.14- Dr.Angaiyarkanni has spoken about the post-mortem conducted and also about her final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.15 has spoken about the registration of the case, investigation done and the 15/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.267 of 2017 final report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine anyone nor mark any documents.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted them as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.Homicide :-From the combined reading of the evidence of P.W.14- Dr.S.Angayarkanni, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 29.01.2010, coupled with the documentary evidence of Ex.P.14/post-mortem certificate, we find that the deceased namely, Mr.Selvakumar died due to smothering.Submissions :-The learned counsel for the appellant/A.1, relying upon the 16/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.267 of 2017 grounds of appeal, would contend that the occurrence in this case took place on 28.01.2010 in early hours i.e., 3.30 a.m. and the scene of occurrence is surrounded with darkness whereas P.W.1 has identified 3 of the accused correctly in the test identification parade conducted by P.W.9 on 02.03.2010 and hence, the same is doubtful.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the second accused had preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.836 of 2016 and by a judgment dated 21.03.2017, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the second accused.The learned Additional Public Prosecution further submitted that during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.836 of 2016, the prosecution filed Crl.The said petition was allowed on 24.02.2017, after affording sufficient opportunity to the learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.In his evidence, he identified M.O.12-Nokia cellphone as the one which was snatched away from him by the accused.He has further identified M.O.7 cellphone as that of the deceased.Further, he has also identified M.O.13 the silver waist chord rope belonging to the deceased.The accused was thereafter questioned by the Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 16.03.2017 in respect of the said additional evidence.In the present appeal, the prosecution has not filed any criminal miscellaneous petition and the same is placed on record.Discussion :-As discussed supra, P.W.1 is projected as a sole eye-witness to the occurrence.On a careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, we find that he has given a clear picture about the way in which these accused 18/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.267 of 2017 committed decoity and one of the accused projected as a lady standing in the middle of the road on the mid night and also given a gesture to stop the lorry.Believing that one girl was seeking help in the mid night, the deceased Selvakumar stopped the lorry and went near to them.Thereafter, the accused have taken the deceased to the nearby bush and half an hour thereafter, two persons came to the lorry, one was found to be the person accompanied the deceased which was identified by P.W.1 as the first accused, both in the test identification parade as well as in the open Court during trial.The accused also searched for money in the lorry and as no money was found, they snatched away a cell phone and silver waist chord rope from P.W.1 at the knife point.When the accused had taken P.W.1 to the nearby bush, P.W.1 found the deceased lying down and his hands and legs were tied with nylon rope and the deceased was found with injuries.The first accused/appellant also threatened P.W.1 not to disclose the incident with anyone.After travelling one kilometer, the four persons were adult accused and one was juvenile.The person, who was found wearing nighty has also removed the nighty, that person is juvenile and there is nothing in the cross-examination to 19/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.P.4, P.W.1 has clearly identified the all the three accused in all three attempts and hence, the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is only for an argument sake and hence, in view of the corroborative nature as discussed supra, the evidence of P.W.1 is held to be reliable and trustworthy as the same inspires the confidence of this Court and hence, the above contention stands negatived.In the chief examination P.W.1 has narrated how he identified the accused and further, P.W.1 was in the company of the accused for some more time.P.5, P.6, P.10, P.11 and P.12, 22/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/A.1 in S.C.No.39 of 2010 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, are confirmed.
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
148,018,062
A young poet, Amrita Pritam, who fled to this country with her two little children from Lahore was witness to the manifold tragedies during that perilous journey.She was moved to pen an Ode to Waris Shah in which she spoke of the fertile land of Punjab having "sprouted poisonous weeds far and near" and where "Seeds of hatred have grown high, bloodshed is everywhere / Poisoned breeze in forest turned bamboo flutes into snakes / Their venom has turned the bright and rosy Punjab all blue".The killings would continue in the streets of Delhi.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 203Thirty-seven years later, the country was again witness to another enormous human tragedy.Following the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, on the morning of 31st October 1984 by two of her Sikh bodyguards, a communal frenzy was unleashed.For four days between 1st and 4th November of that year, all over Delhi, 2,733 Sikhs were brutally murdered.Their houses were destroyed.In the rest of the country too thousands of Sikhs were killed.They will continue to shock the collective conscience of society for a long time to come.While it is undeniable that it has taken over three decades to bring the accused in this case to justice, and that our criminal justice system stands severely tested in that process, it is essential, in a democracy governed by the rule of law to be able to call out those responsible for such mass crimes.It is important to assure those countless victims waiting patiently that despite the challenges, truth will prevail and justice will be done.* * * * *These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 30th April 2013 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, North-east District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (trial Court) in SC No.26/2010 arising out of FIR No.RC- SI-1/2005/S0024 registered at PS Delhi Cantonment acquitting Sajjan Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 203 Kumar (Accused No.1: A-1) of the offences of criminal conspiracy and abetment while, at the same time, convicting Balwan Khokar (A-2), Mahender Yadav (A-3), Captain Bhagmal (Retd.) (A-4), Girdhari Lal (A-5), and Krishan Khokar (A-6).The trial Court convicted A-2, A-4, and A-5 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with 149 IPC. A-3 and A-6 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 148 IPC.By the order on sentence dated 9th May 2013, they have been sentenced in the following manner:Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 203(i) For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, A-2, A-4, and A-5 were sentenced to imprisonment for life along with payment of a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for six months;(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC, all five convicted accused were sentenced to two years' RI along with payment of a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months;A.851/2013 by A-4, Crl.A.710/2014 by A-5, and Crl.First, he was charged with having committed the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 147, 148, 302, 395, 427, 436, 449, 153A, 295, and 505 IPC on account of entering into an agreement, on or about 31st October 1984, with A-2 to A-6 as well as Maha Singh, Santosh Rani @ Janta Hawaldarni, Ishwar Chand Gaur @ Chand Sharabi, Dharamveer Singh Solanki, Balidan Singh, Raj Kumar @ Rajaram (all since deceased), and other known and unknown persons including police personnel to commit the following acts:(viii) Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony, Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 203Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 203(ix) Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of Sikh community, and(x) Making statements conducing to public mischief.Secondly, A-1 was charged with being a principal offender who abetted and instigated the aforementioned co-accused persons in the wake of the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi to commit, in pursuance of the aforementioned conspiracy, offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 395, 427, 436, 449, 153A, 295, and 505 IPC and thereby having committed the offence punishable under Section 109 IPC read with the aforementioned provisions of the IPC.Thirdly, A-1 was charged with having delivered fiery/provocative speeches to the mob gathered at Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, Delhi Cantonment on 1st/2nd November 1984 and having instigated and promoted violent enmity against the Sikh community and disturbed harmony between the two religious groups/communities of the locality in retaliation of the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, giving rise to feelings of enmity, hatred, and ill will between members of the non-Sikh and Sikh communities which was prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony and disturbed public tranquillity and was thereby guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 153A IPC.Fourthly, A-1 was charged with having publicly made a statement on 1st/2nd November 1984, to wit, by asking members of the Jat community to not leave any Sikh or any other person who had given shelter to Sikhs alive, inciting the mob gathered there by delivering fiery/provocative speeches Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 203 and was thereby guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 505 IPC.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 203Charges framed against A-2 to A-6Firstly, they were charged in a manner similar to A-1 with commission, on or about 31st October 1984, of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 147, 148, 302, 395, 427, 436, 449, 153A, 295, and 505 IPC.Secondly, they were charged with having been members of an unlawful assembly on 1st/2nd November 1984 in Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, Delhi Cantonment using force and violence in pursuance of the common object to loot, damage, and burn the properties of the Sikh community as well as to kill members of the Sikh community residing in the area in retaliation to the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi and were thereby guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC.Thirdly, they were charged with commission of the aforementioned acts while being members of an unlawful assembly armed with guns, jellies, iron rods/pipes, lathis, kerosene oil, etc. and were thereby guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC.Fourthly, they were charged with having committed, while being members of the aforementioned unlawful assembly, the murders of Kehar Singh son of Dhyan Singh, Gurpreet Singh son of Kehar Singh, Raghuvinder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, Narender Pal Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, and Kuldeep Singh son of Hardev Singh and were Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 203 thereby guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.Fifthly, they were charged with committing mischief and causing loss and damage amounting to approximately Rs.3,30,000/- while being members of the aforementioned unlawful assembly and were thereby guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 427 read with Section 149 IPC.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 203Sixthly, they were charged with committing mischief while being members of the aforementioned unlawful assembly by setting fire to a place of worship, viz. the Raj Nagar Gurudwara, as well as the dwelling houses H.No.RZ-1/129 & RZ-15, Shiv Mandir Marg, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi and were thereby guilty of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 436 read with Section 149 IPC.Seventhly, they were charged with having committed house trespass while being members of the aforementioned unlawful assembly by entering H.No.RZ-1/129 & RZ-15, Shiv Mandir Marg, Raj Nagar, Delhi Cantonment, which were the dwelling house of the five deceased persons, in order to commit the offence of murder which is punishable with death, and were thereby guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 449 read with Section 149 IPC.The prosecution caseThe version of events put forth by the prosecution flows mainly from the depositions of three witnesses, viz. Jagdish Kaur (PW-1), Jagsher Singh (PW-6), and Nirpreet Kaur (PW-10).14. PW-1, at the time of the incident, was a resident of H.No.RZ-1/129, Shiv Mandir Marg, Raj Nagar along with her husband, three daughters, and two sons.Her husband, Kehar Singh, was a gun-fitter in the EME Workshop No.505 in Delhi Cantonment.Her elder son, Gurpreet Singh, was 18 years old at the time and was completing his B.Sc.Jagsher Singh (PW-6) lived with his brothers, Narender Pal Singh and Raghuvinder Singh, at H.No.RZ-15, Shiv Mandir Marg, Raj Nagar, Palam Colony, Delhi Cantonment.His cousin, Kuldeep Singh, also resided with them.Narender Pal Singh and Raghuvinder Singh were MES contractors working with the Air Force and the Airports Authority of India, mainly dealing in electric wiring, cable laying, water supply, etc. Kuldeep Singh assisted them in their business from time to time.Harbhajan Kaur was the wife of Narender Pal Singh and Daljit Kaur was the wife of Raghuvinder Singh.Luckdeep Singh and Sandeep Singh were the sons of Raghuvinder Singh and were both toddlers at the time.PW-1 is the cousin of PW-6, Crl.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 203PW-10 was the daughter of Nirmal Singh and Sampuran Kaur.She was around 16 years old at the time of the incident.Her family comprised her parents, herself, and her two younger brothers, Nirpal Singh and Nirmolak Singh.They all lived at RZ/WZ-241 Raj Nagar, Palam Colony which was located near the Raj Nagar Gurudwara.Raj Nagar Gurudwara incident and killing of Nirmal SinghAs already noted, in the forenoon of 31st October 1984, Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, was assassinated by two of her Sikh bodyguards.According to PW-10, on that date, there were no untoward incidents in Raj Nagar except for a few stray ones here and there.She went on to depose that at around 6:30 pm, A-2 and A-6, who introduced themselves as the nephews of A-1, came to her residence to meet her father Nirmal Singh who ran a taxi stand at Anand Niketan and operated a transportation business.They asked that A-6 be employed as a driver by him.Nirmal Singh informed them that he had no vacancies at present but would inform them should any such vacancy arise.18. PW-10 then stated that at around 2:30 to 3 am on 1st November 1984, the Granthi of the Raj Nagar Gurudwara came to their residence and informed her father, who was the President of the Gurudwara, that police personnel had come to the Gurudwara.When Nirmal Singh and his wife Sampuran Kaur went to the Gurudwara, the police personnel there informed them that they had been deployed to safeguard the Gurudwara as the situation at the time was not congenial to Sikhs.PW-10 deposed that she Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 13 of 203 herself went to the Gurudwara for morning prayers at around 5 to 5:30 am on 1st November 1984, at which time the police personnel were present there.She stated that during the prayers, the police personnel disappeared without any intimation.Thereafter, at around 7:30 to 8 am, a mob led by A-2, A-3, and the owner of one Mamta Bakery attacked the Gurudwara whilst armed with sariyas, rods, subbal, jellies, etc. and raising slogans such as "Indira Gandhi amar rahe" and "In sardaron ko maro, inhone hamari maa ko mara hai".Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 13 of 203Apprehensive that the mob would dishonour the Guru Granth Saheb, PW-10 and her brother Nirmolak Singh rushed to the Gurudwara so as to pick up the Guru Granth Saheb.They were set upon by the mob but were able to escape its clutches.PW-10 stated that, as she and her brother were going towards their residence, A-3 and the owner of Mamta Bakery pointed to her and her brother and said to the mob, "Isse maron, ye saap ka bachha hai".The mob followed them to their residence and caused damage to the walls and the gate of their house.Nirmal Singh and his wife came to the aid of their children.Thereafter, PW-10 stated that some members of the mob set fire to a truck belonging to Harbans Singh.Nirmal Singh raised an alarm and upon hearing this, Harbans Singh came out of his house and put out the fire.She went on to state that the Sikh residents of the area defended themselves for 2 to 3 hours with the mob attacking from three sides before the police personnel reached there.However, Nirmal Singh and the other members of the Sikh community did not agree to do so.The police personnel present asked both groups to reach a compromise and left the spot after taking away the kirpans from the Sikhs who had assembled there to defend their Gurudwara.Thereafter, Nirmal Singh went with A-2 and A-3 on a scooter.PW-10 stated that, apprehending danger, she ran behind the scooter and saw that they had stopped near the shop of one Dhanraj where a mob had gathered.There, A-2 purportedly said that he had brought with him the last remaining Sikh from the area, i.e. Nirmal Singh.The mob doused him in kerosene oil but they were unable to find any match sticks to set him on fire.At this time, one of the police personnel present there, Inspector Kaushik, allegedly shouted at the mob: "Doob maro, tumse ek sardar bhi nahin jalta".He then gave a match box to A-6 who set fire to Nirmal Singh.When the mob started moving along, Nirmal Singh jumped in a nearby nala.Noticing that he was still alive, the mob returned and A-4 tied him to a telephone pole and he was again set on fire.He again managed to jump in the nala.According to PW-10, the mob returned once again upon being told of this and A-2 began hitting Nirmal Singh with a rod while A-3 sprinkled some white powder (phosphorus) on him, causing burns.When someone shouted that Nirmal Singhs family should be killed as well, PW- 10 rushed back to her house where she found her mother lying unconscious.The house itself was burning and, according to her, the police personnel standing nearby did not help.With the help of one Santok Singh Sandhu who was serving in the Air Force, PW-10 and her family fled to the Air Force Station, Palam in an Air Force vehicle.Joginder Singh (PW-7) was also a resident of the area and has also deposed about the burning of the Raj Nagar Gurudwara.He stated that at around 7:30 am on 1st November 1984, he and his wife were exiting the Gurudwara when they saw a mob coming from the Mehrauli Road side.He identified A-2, A-3, A-4, A-6, one Raja Ram, and one Gulati as being members of the mob which was armed with lathis, rods, jellies, pipes, etc. He stated that he along with some other men from the Sikh community assembled in front of the Gurudwara armed with their kirpans when they heard that it was under attack.He then stated that the house of one Jasbir Singh was looted and the truck of Harbans Singh was burned.He deposed that the police came two hours later and took the swords of the Sikhs away.The mob led by A-2, A-3, and A-6 again came to the spot.He stated that A-2 and A-3, who were on a scooter, caught hold of Nirmal Singh and told him that they wanted to talk to him so as to settle the matter.Thereafter, PW-7 stated, they took Nirmal Singh away while he went back home.Therefore, as regards the incident at and near the Raj Nagar Gurudwara, PWs 7 and 10 have identified A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-6 as being part of the mob which attacked and burned the Gurudwara.Murders at Shiv Mandir Marg Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 16 of 203Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 16 of 20325. PW-1, the wife of Kehar Singh and mother of Gurpreet Singh, deposed that on the morning of 1st November 1984, she had been told not to permit her husband or sons to leave the house as the atmosphere outside was unsafe and Sikhs were being attacked.On the advice of Gurpreet Singh, she took her three daughters and younger son Gurdeep Singh to the house of one of her neighbours, Ram Avtar Sharma (PW-3), where she found her cousin PW-6 also taking shelter.26. PW-1 stated that at around 1:30 to 2 pm, a mob entered her house from all sides armed with sariyas, gaintis, and other lethal weapons.She stated that they pounced upon her son Gurpreet Singh and dragged her husband, effectively crushing his head, till he dropped dead.Her son, who had sustained injuries, ran some distance down the street before he was attacked again and set on fire.PW-1 has identified, from among the accused in the present case, A-2 as being part of that mob along with some others.After shifting her sons body which was lying on the street back into her house with the help of PWs 3 and 6, PW-1 went to the nearby Police Post (PP) where the Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) present allegedly said, "Bhag yahan se, abhi to aur marenge, jab sab mar jaenge jo kuch hoga sabka ekattha hoga".She returned home at around 6 pm.Shortly thereafter, PW-3 turned her children out of his house due to his fear of being targeted by the mob.She hid her children under a blanket on the roof of her house and kept saying her prayers.She went on to depose that a mob kept banging on the doors of the house of Rajni Bala (DW-2) throughout the night, asking for the Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 17 of 203 "thekedars".PW-1 apprehended that this was in reference to her cousin brothers - PW-6, Narender Pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh, and Kuldeep Singh.She stated that at around 7:30 am on 2nd November 1984, Narender Pal Singh jumped onto the street adjoining her house and was followed by Raghuvinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh.This was seen by one Dharamvir (a member of the mob which attacked her house) who raised an alarm that the "thekedars" were running away.Upon hearing this, A-4, A-5, and one Subedar Balidan Singh (Retd.) came along with a mob armed with lathis.PW-1 states that she saw that Narender Pal Singh was injured with lathi blows and then burned.This, she stated, happened near her house.She also stated that she saw her other two cousin brothers, Raghuvinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh, being attacked and taken away by the mob.Fearing for the safety of herself and her children, she closed the door and stated that she did not see anything thereafter.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 17 of 203At around 9 am on 2nd November 1984, when she went to lodge a report at the PP, she saw that a public meeting was taking place which was attended by A-1 who was the local Member of Parliament (MP).She heard him declare, "Sikh sala ek nahin bachna chahiye, jo Hindu bhai unko sharan deta hai, uska ghar bhi jala do aur unko bhi maro".She stated that she also heard the officer-in-charge of the PP ask members of the mob "kitne murge bhun diye".She stated that at this point, she lost faith in humanity.30. PW-6 had also deposed as to both these incidents of murders at Shiv Mandir Marg.He stated that on the morning of 1st November 1984, he and Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 18 of 203 his brothers were informed by DW-2 and others not to leave the house.He stated that DW-2 asked them to come to her house till such time as normalcy returned.Therefore, he and his family members went to her house.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 18 of 203He then stated that, at some stage, he returned to his house to park his motorcycle inside the house.He then claimed that, when returning to DW-2s house, he saw a mob coming from the direction of Palam Village heading towards Shiv Mandir Marg.He further claimed that the mob was raising slogans such as "In Sikhon ko maro; in gaddaron ko maro; Hindustan mein ek sikh bhi jinda nahi bachna chahiyen".Ten minutes later, he heard shrieks and loud voices from outside.He saw the mob drag Kehar Singh and Gurpreet Singh.He stated that Kehar Singh, who fell down inside the house itself, was being hit with iron rods.He further claimed that Gurpreet Singh, in a bid to rescue himself, ran towards a small street in front of the house.However, some members of the mob caught hold of him and beat him with iron rods and killed him.He stated that he helped his cousin PW-1 move the body of Gurpreet Singh back into their house using a cot.He claimed that he thereafter remained in the house of PW-3 till 10 pm.33. PW-6 further deposes that in the evening of 1 st November 1984, the mob again came to his house, broke the gate, peeked inside, and thereafter Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 19 of 203 left having found the house empty.When he left the house of PW-3 at around 10 pm, he saw an Ambassador car which stopped at the turning onto Shiv Mandir Marg.He stated that 30-40 persons gathered around the car from which emerged A-1 who enquired as to whether "they have done the work".Thereafter, it is stated, A-1 approached the house of PW-6 to inspect it and came back and told the assembled mob that they had "only broken the gate of the thekedars house".One of the members of the mob then allegedly informed him that "the thekedars are being saved by the Hindus only".Upon hearing this, A-1 is stated to have instructed the mob to burn the houses of the Hindus who were sheltering the Sikhs.He then left in his car.35. PW-6 then stated that at around 5 am on 2nd November 1984, PW-3 brought a car in order to rescue the three cousins of PW-1 under the cover of darkness but was unable to do so due to the mobs presence in the area.At around 6 am, PW-3 turned PW-6 out of his house, fearing for his own safety.PW-6 then stated that he went towards the gali where Gurpreet Singh was killed.There he saw a Sikh man wrapped in a woollen shawl Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 20 of 203 being chased by a group of people.The mob caught up with that man and started beating him with rods and then set him on fire.After the crowd dispersed, PW-6 was able to identify the man who had been killed as his brother Narender Pal Singh.He was able to do so by recognising his wristwatch.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 20 of 20336. PW-6 deposed that in a bid to save his other two brothers, he went through various streets till he reached Palam Colony Railway Gate.From there, he took a lift to Gopinath Bazar where he went to the house of Major Dhanraj Yadav, Garrison Engineer (East) (DW-1) who he knew, having worked under him as an MES contractor.He stated that DW-1 agreed to accompany him in his search for the other two deceased.They took a vehicle from the Parade Ground with 7-8 jawans from the Sikh Regiment and reached near PW-6s house in Raj Nagar around 10 am.PW- 6 stated that he enquired from PW-3 as to the whereabouts of his other two brothers.He was told that they too were killed at Dada Chatriwala Marg.PW-6 and DW-1 reached there and found the bodies of his two brothers, Raghuvinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh.He was able to identify them by their clothing.He also retrieved PW-1, her younger son, and three daughters and made them sit in the vehicle.Thereafter, they all went to the Parade Ground.DW-1 took them to his house where they stayed for two nights.PW-1, however, decided to return Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 21 of 203 to Raj Nagar on the same evening, leaving her children with PW-6 at DW-1s house.She went to her house and saw that 1000-watt bulbs had been installed in the neighbourhood, making it impossible for anyone to hide.Feeling unsafe, she started to walk down Mehrauli Road where she found a group of people sitting around a bonfire.She asked for Om Prakash, an employee of her husband.When he identified himself, she asked him if she could stay at his house to which he reluctantly agreed.Thereafter, with the help of some people, she cremated the bodies of her deceased husband and son.She then narrates that she was taken away from the area hidden in a police vehicle to PP Palam Colony where the in-charge, in the presence of Air Force personnel, recorded her report in a few lines and obtained her signatures on blank papers as he claimed he was short of time and would prepare the report later.PW-1 then went to Gurudwara Sadar, Delhi Cantonment.From there she went to the house of DW-1 where she spent the night with her bhabhis and children.The next morning, she returned to Gurudwara Sadar, Delhi Cantonment with her children.At 4 pm on 4th November 1984, PW-6 shifted PW-1 and her children to the Air Force Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 22 of 203 Gurudwara.She stayed there and then in Moti Bagh Gurudwara till 12th December 1984 when she left Delhi and went to Punjab.Nothing appears to have come of the report lodged by PW-1 at PP Palam Colony.PW-6 also stated that his father, the late Gurcharan Singh, had filed a complaint with the police but no statement was recorded.FIR No. 416/1984 was registered at PS Delhi Cantonment on 4th November 1984 on the complaint of one Daljit Kaur who spoke about a mob of 400-500 people attacking her house on 1st November 1984 which resulted in injuries to her parents.There was another attack on her house on 2nd November 1984 in which her father was set on fire by the mob on the instigation of her neighbour, Mahender Sharabi.However, it appears that the investigation into the said FIR remained inconclusive.On 25th March 1985, five charge sheets were filed by the Delhi Police based on the statement of Daljit Kaur.Thereafter, a series of Committees and Commissions were set up for the purpose of conducting inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the violence that took place in the aftermath of the assassination of the then Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi.The Marwaha Committee headed by Mr. Ved Marwaha began recording the statements of victims as well as the police officers involved.At this stage it is pertinent to note that, according to the defence in the present case, PW-1 also allegedly gave a statement to the Special Riots Cell, Malviya Nagar on 31st December 1992 under Section 161 Cr PC.This too, however, is disputed by the CBI.The Justice Nanavati Commission and subsequent investigation by CBIIn May 2000, the Justice Nanavati Commission was constituted.PW-1, PW-10, and Sampuran Kaur (wife of the deceased Nirmal Singh) were among those who made statements before the Justice Nanavati Commission.The following excerpt from the report of the Justice Nanavati Commission speaks of the role of A-1 as under:The Commission therefore recommends to the Government to examine only those cases where the witnesses have accused Shri Sajjan Kumar specifically and yet no charge sheets were filed against him and the cases were terminated as untraced and if there is justification for the same take further action as is permitted by law.Those cases which were closed as untraced and which still deserve to be reexamined are those which would arise from FIR Nos. 250/84, 307/94 and 347/91 of police station Sultanpuri, FIR Nos. 325/93, 329/93, 178/84 of police station Mangolpuri and FIR No. 416/84 of police station Delhi Cantt."Similar observations were made in respect of two other leaders of the Congress.On 24th October 2005, a letter was sent by the Secretary (H) in the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Director, CBI as under:"In reply to the discussion held in the Lok Sabha on 10 th August 2005 and the Rajya Sabha on 11th August 2005 on the Report of Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry into 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister had given an assurance that wherever the Commission has named any specific individuals as needing further examination or re- opening of case the Government will take all possible steps to do so within the ambit of law.The matter has accordingly been examined and it is observed that the Report of Justice Nanavati Commission, inter Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 26 of 203 alia, contains recommendations regarding investigation/ reinvestigation of the cases against (a) Shri Dharam Das Shastri, (b) Shri Jagdish Tytler, and (c) Shri Sajjan Kumar.Additional records/information required in connection with investigations might be obtained from Delhi Police."Inspector Rakesh (DW-17), who was a part of the Special Riots Cell, Delhi Police, deposed that he attempted to join PW-1 in the investigation and even issued a notice to her under Section 160 Cr PC (Ex.PW-1/DY).Thereunder, an endorsement was supposedly made on behalf of PW-1 by her son Gurdeep Singh to whom she dictated her refusal to join the investigation.Eventually, an untraced report was filed by Inspector Sunil Kumar Vashisht (DW-15) and thereafter, a closure report (Ex.The letter dated 24th October 2005 extracted hereinabove was issued in pursuance of the discussions held in both Houses of Parliament on 10 th and 11th August 2005 wherein demands were made for further action to be taken on the recommendations of the Justice Nanavati Commission.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 27 of 203Consequently, the investigation of the matter was entrusted to the CBI and, on 22nd November 2005, RC No.SI-1/2005/S0024 was registered at PS Delhi Cantonment.The charge sheetOn 13th January 2010, the CBI filed the charge sheet in which it set out the details of the earlier cases which had ended in acquittals as under:The charge sheet summarised the recommendations of the Justice Nanavati Commission as under:"16.6 During the proceedings, the Commission took note of the depositions/affidavits of Smt. Jagdish Kaur, Sh.Sudarshan Singh & Sh.Jasbir Singh and observed that many witnesses have stated about the involvement of Sajjan Kumar.Smt. Jagdish Kaur, Sudarshan Singh and many persons from Raj Nagar, Palam Colony have spoken about the participation of Shri Sajjan Kumar and Balwan Khokhar in the riots in that area.Jagdish Kaur of Raj Nagar has stated that she had heard Sajjan Kumar telling the persons "Sardar sala koi nahin bachna chahiye".' Jasbir Singh of Raj Nagar had also spoken about the Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 28 of 203 involvement of Sajjan Kumar and Balwan Khokhar and further stated that even though he had gone with a written complaint naming the assailants, the police did not take down his complaint and Sajjan Kumar was not put up for trial.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 28 of 20316.7 The Commission concluded that there is credible material against Sajjan Kumar and Balwan Khokhar for recording a finding that he and Balwan Khokhar were probably involved as alleged by the witnesses.Thus, the Commission recommended to the Government to examine only those cases and take further action in them as permitted by the Law, in which the witnesses had accused Sajjan Kumar specifically and yet no chargesheets were filed against him and the cases were terminated as untraced.16.8 After considering the findings of the Nanavati Commission, the Govt of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide order dated 24.10.2005 directed the CBI to investigate/re- investigate the cases against Sajjan Kumar including FIR No.416/84 dated 4.11.1984 of PS Delhi Cantt., Delhi.Accordingly, case FIR No.416/84 of PS Delhi Cantt.Was re- registered by CBI as case RC-24(S)/2005-SCU.I/SCR.I on 22.11.2005 and investigation was taken up."The details of the investigation undertaken by the CBI pursuant to the registration of the case were then set out in the charge sheet.Reference was made to the statement of PW-7 who spoke of an unlawful assembly of around 2000 persons in Raj Nagar, Palam Colony at around 7 am on 1st November 1984 with the intention to loot, damage, and burn the properties of the Sikh community and to kill Sikhs and burn their bodies.It was stated that, pursuant to this common object, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-6, and one Raja Ram (since deceased) were part of a mob armed with guns, jellies, iron rods, lathis, etc. which attacked the Raj Nagar Gurudwara and set it on fire.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 29 of 203The charge sheet then narrated how the mob went on to burn the houses and vehicles belonging to the Sikh community.Referring to the killing of Nirmal Singh, the charge sheet stated that he was caught hold of by A-2, A- 3, and A-6 and taken near the shop of Dhanraj where he was assaulted by a mob which included A-4 and then burnt alive after being doused in kerosene oil.The charge sheet then described the killing of Kehar Singh and his son Gurdeep Singh on 1st November 1984 by an unlawful assembly led by A-2, Maha Singh, Santosh Rani @ Janta Hawaldarni, Ishwar Chand @ Chand Sarabi (since deceased), and Dharamveer Singh (since deceased).The charge sheet then stated, as spoken to by PW-6, that A-1 arrived at Raj Nagar, in pursuance of the aforementioned common object, at around 10- 11 pm on 1st November 1984 and instigated the mob by exhorting them to not allow any Sikh to go alive and to not spare even Hindus who were providing shelter to Sikhs.The charge sheet also stated that after A-1 left, the mob looted household articles from the house of PW-6 and set it on fire.It also mentioned the subsequent attack on the house of DW-2 where the three deceased, Raghuvinder Singh, Narender Pal Singh, and Kuldeep Singh, had taken shelter.The charge sheet then referred to their murders on 2nd November 1984 by a mob comprising A-4, A-5, Dharamveer (since deceased), and Balidan Singh (since deceased).Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 30 of 203She also was a witness to A-1 addressing a meeting of his followers at around 10 am on 2nd November 1984 near police post (PP) Manglapuri Mandir, exhorting them to not leave any Sikh alive and to kill even those who had given shelter to them.SP) Manoj Pangarkar (PW-Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 31 of 203Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 32 of 203(iv) Although the mandate of the law was that each incident of crime has to be separately registered by the police and then investigated, it appears that all complaints were clubbed in FIR No.416/1984 registered on 4th November 1984 at PS Delhi Cantonment.(v) The intention of the police was clear from the cyclostyled report (Ex.PW-1/D) which was submitted to the SHO by PW-1 in which the claim on account of the assessed damage to the house was stated as Rs.45,000/- and to the household articles was stated as Rs.1,25,000/-.It appeared as though the police had convinced victims that the killing of their family members was merely an opportunity to bargain for monetary relief.This was another reflection of the polices total inaction.He pointed out that the case had to be appreciated in the overall context of the number of killings that took place in the capital city when riots broke out on 31st October 1984 in the aftermath of Smt. Indira Gandhis assassination and continued till at least 4th November 1984 in which thousands of Sikhs were murdered and their properties, and places of worship, destroyed.Just in Delhi Cantonment area alone, a total of 21 FIRs were registered.In FIR No.416/1984 itself, 22 other complaints were Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 38 of 203 tagged and these pertained to 30 murders.Of the 341 people killed in the Delhi Cantonment area which resulted in the registration of 21 FIRs, four of them related to Raj Nagar.Only five dead bodies were recovered and this was primarily due to the intervention of the Army.Therefore, post-mortem examinations were conducted only in those five instances.Despite a searching cross-examination, she consistently maintained having made that Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 40 of 203 statement.The fact of her giving a complaint dated 3rd November 2004 was spoken to by her before the Justice Nanavati Commission.This was acknowledged by even the counsel for Delhi Police present at the time her statement was being recorded before the Justice Nanavati Commission.According to Mr. Phoolka, in such circumstances, it was unfair to place the entire onus on the witnesses and victims to come forward to speak against A-1 without affording them any protection.He further pointed out that at the time of the aforementioned incident, the party to which A-1 belonged was not in power and yet, he was so influential that no one could dare to take him into custody for questioning.The earliest statement of PW-6 on the record is the one made under Section 161 Cr PC dated 7th November 2007 (Ex.PW-6/DA).Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 66 of 203In a case where a victim lodges a report regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, Rule 22.49(n) requires an entry in respect thereof to be recorded in the DDR.The copy of the DDR entry is thereafter forwarded to the PS with an endorsement for the purposes of recording a formal FIR in the FIR register.It states that at that time, a curfew was in operation and a voice had come from inside H. No. R-2/110, Raj Nagar stating "if any sardars had survived, they should also not be left alive today".It was recorded that they were saying this loudly by creating a nuisance.Despite the SI going close to the said house and addressing them in a loud voice, the voice from inside the house continued to be raised and they "continued to use provocative expressions".The searching cross-examination of PW-17, who was not present in the PS Delhi Cantonment area at that time, did not elicit any answer that could help the defence.He could answer only with regard to FIR No.416/1984 and that was not unnatural.Even the answers given by PW-15 in this regard do not help the accused.When asked as to how many complaints were clubbed in FIR No.416/1984, he stated that "there were about 15/20 such complaints clubbed in this FIR".He stated that the death of every victim was separately investigated but admitted that "all were not sent for trial".When asked whether, on the complaint of PW-1, separate action was taken regarding the killing of her husband, son and three cousins, he answered: "No. Practically no substantial action or investigation was done by Delhi Police with regard to the aforesaid death".Thus, it is clear that there was an utter failure to register separate FIRs with respect to each of the five deaths that form the subject matter of the present appeals.In her examination-in-chief dated 2nd July 2010 about what she did on 3rd November 1984, she stated as under:"...When I reached the Police Post, the Incharge was present there.At that time, Air Force Personnel were also present nearby with vehicle.The Incharge of the Police Post recorded my report on a plain paper after writing a few lines and made me sign the same.He also obtained my signatures on two blank papers and stated that he was short of time and would prepare the report later.I had disclosed to the police all that had happened." (emphasis in original)The following suggestion given by the defence to her was acknowledgment of her having made such a statement:"... It is incorrect to suggest that on 03.11.1984 police officials were concerned about my safety and they took precautions that I should reach the police post safely.The law and order machinery had clearly broken down and it was literally a free for all situation which persisted.The aftershocks of those atrocities are still being felt.This mob was being led by A-1 who was instigating them, saying that all Sikh males be burnt to death and their property be looted.Under that instigation, her husband was dragged out and attacked with a sharp-edged weapon and burnt to death after being doused in kerosene oil.Thereafter, her house was also burnt.She took refuge in the house of her daughter Film Kaur, who was residing in D-Block, Sultanpuri.Late at Crl."The assassination of late Prime Minister India Gandhi on 31.10.84, was an unfortunate incident, but still more unfortunate were the events, which took place thereafter, as a result of which a large number of anti-social elements came out of their house in anger and indulged in incidents of rioting, looting, arson, assault and killing of innocent persons and burning their property throughout India.On first of November, 1984 such like 'incidents also took place in the locality of Sultanpuri, Delhi.Information of this incident was received at the Police station at about 2.10 p.m. It was recorded in the DD.Register at serial no. 11-A.-and the same was handed over to SI Sukhbir Singh for immediate action.The gloom that had spread and affected the Congressmen in particular would not have permitted any such organisation to be handled.The reaction appears to have come as flutter and sparked everywhere in a similar pattern."In fact, the anti-social elements had taken the lead".It was observed that the Commission had come to the conclusion that despite wide spread publicity to the cause, many persons had not come forward to depose as to the actual happenings between 1st and 7th November 1984 and, therefore, it recommended that a new committee be appointed "to go through the individual cases of omission or non-registration of cases by the local police".The Jain-Banerjee Committee comprising Justice M. L. Jain, a former Judge of this Court, and Mr. A. K. Banerjee, a retired officer of the Indian Police Service (IPS) came to be constituted.This Committee went Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 77 of 203 through the affidavit of Anwar Kaur and wrote to the Delhi Administration for an FIR to be registered.At that point, one B. N. Gupta filed a writ petition before this Court which, by the aforementioned judgment in Brahma Nand Gupta (supra), restrained the registration of cases pursuant to directions of the Jain-Banerjee Committee.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 77 of 203By the time the search was concluded, the mob outside the house inflamed and was raising slogans against the CBI and in favour of the petitioner.The mob in fact had barred the exit gate which made difficult for them to leave the premises.With the lapse of time, the mob continued to swell and provocative slogans were chanted through a loudspeaker system installed by the mob.In her very first affidavit before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission dated 7th September 1985 (Ex.PW-1/A), she referred to the attack on 1st November 1984 and stated that it was "perfectly organized".She noted that "the mob had the names, addresses and particulars, about every Sikh living in our locality".She stated that many Congress leaders were leading the mob and she named A-2, Maha Singh, and Santosh Rani (also known as Janta Hawaldarni).Her pleas for their help were rebuffed by them.She then referred to the attack on her husband and son.She also mentioned the attack at around 6 am on 2nd November 1984 on her three brothers, viz. Narender Pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh, and Kuldeep Singh who she states were "hiding on top of their house in front of our building".PW-1 mentioned Balram, a local youth Congress leader supplying kerosene oil to the mob and that he had a depot in Palam Colony.She mentioned about being taken on 3rd November 1984 to PS Palam Nagar at 2 pm in the police van where they registered her report.She then states that she was taken to the Sadar Gurudwara camp in Delhi Cantonment in an Air Force van.However, in her original affidavit before the Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 96 of 203 Justice Nanavati Commission (Ex.PW-1/B), her statement in para 4 was that "MP Sajjan Kumar was leading the mob".She further narrates how she went to the PS on that date to file a report but no one listened to her and that on 3rd November 1984, when she went to the PS, they entered the report "but after that no action was taken by the police".In para 7, she again mentioned:In November 1988, PW-1 moved to the Dangapeedit Colony in Amritsar.The Court then turns to the evidence of PW-4 who is the brother of PW-6 and two of the deceased, i.e. Raghuvinder Singh and Narender Pal Singh.He came into the scene on 8th November 1984 after he was helped Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 119 of 203 by the Air Force to reach his house.He was already serving in the army as a Corporal in Chakeri, Kanpur.The Court would next like to discuss the evidence of PW-7 who was a witness to the initial attack on the Raj Nagar Gurudwara on 1st November 1984 at around 7:30 am.He was living in the vicinity of the Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 125 of 203 Gurudwara in Raj Nagar, Part-II.At 7:30 am, when alarm calls were heard, he and 20-25 other Sikhs armed with kirpans managed to repel a mob seeking to cause damage to the Gurudwara.However, the police came there and took away the kirpans of the Sikhs.When the mob again came, they managed to cause extensive damage to the Gurudwara besides setting fire to a truck, looting the house of one Jasbir Singh, and committing the murder of Nirmal Singh while taking him away on the pretext of involving him in negotiations for peace.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 125 of 203PW-7 also took active part in the funeral of the dead bodies of the Sikhs with the initiative of Wing Commander L. S. Pannu.Among the dead bodies, he could identify those of Kirpal Singh, Ajit Singh and his son, and one Avtar Singh.He also spoke of the complicity of the police.On 2nd November 1984, hiding in the house of his father-in-law, he could see from the window how a police van would come and stop and upon seeing them, Sikhs would come out hoping to be protected.The police would then leave without offering any help or protection and soon thereafter, a mob would come there and burn those very houses.PW-7 is an important witness as regards the culpability of A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-6 who have been identified by him as members of the rioting mob.He could speak of how cremations were taking place at the very place where the bodies were lying there and this was done with furniture, clothes etc. He was asked in the context of the killing of Avtar Singh as under:"Q. Why did you leave a helpless lady who had lost her Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 126 of 203 husband and son in the riots and house was burnt whereas you claim that you had particularly gone along with Wg.Pannu to help the remaining riot victims?Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 126 of 203A. Our attention was only to cremate the killed persons and therefore, we did not pay any attention to bring the wife of Avtar Singh and therefore we did not pay attention to living persons in the colony to shift to gurudwara as there were too many persons.We thought it first to cremate the killed persons.Last rites were performed at the places where the dead bodies were lying in the colony.What have you to say?It is correct.159.Q. It is further in evidence against you that on 05.11.1984, you Balwan Khokhar came to Air Force Gurdwara with milk and biscuits and inquired about Nirpreet Kaur and her family members.What have you to say?Six families of Sikhs had taken shelter in my house.Thereafter, I arrange for shifting them to Gurdwara, in order to provide milk and biscuits, I had gone to Gurdwara where I met them as well as Wing Cdr.What has emerged in her cross-examination is that she, at one stage, had joined the Sikh Students Federation.He is supposed to have recorded that statement at Gurudwara, Moti Bagh.He admitted in his cross-examination that there was nothing in the statement which showed the place where it was recorded.He has also not denied that there was no entry in the case diary about the recording of such statement.Her house was damaged entirely.Since she was hiding in the neighbouring house with the children, she could not see the attackers herself.The targeting of Sikh male members was spoken to by many witnesses.The attacks were brutal and targeted.There could be no doubt at all that these were cold-blooded murders of members belonging to one community.(iii) There was reference of some incidents and the police visiting local Gurdwara.The police personnel have simply avoided mentioning as to what had happened there and who were involved.The criminals got an opportunity to show their might and increase their hold.I could identify Balwan Khokhar, Kishan Khokhar, Mahender Yadav, Capt.Bhagmal, Raja Ram and Gulati from amongst the mob.The mob was armed with lathis, rods, pipes, jellies etc. The mob comprised of people from nearby villages and colonies.Some persons of my colony were also there.Thereafter we went to our house.After sometime some sikhs shouted that gurudwara has been attacked and it should be saved.About 20-25 of sikhs including me, with their kirpans assembled together in front of the gurudwara.All sentences shall run concurrently.The bail and surety bonds furnished by A-1 stand cancelled and he Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 201 of 203 shall surrender not later than 31st December 2018, failing which he shall forthwith be taken into custody to serve out the sentences awarded to him. A-1 shall not from this moment till his surrender leave the NCT of Delhi in the meanwhile and shall immediately provide to the CBI the address and mobile number(s) where he can be contacted.A-3 and A-6 shall surrender not later than 31st December 2018, failing which they shall forthwith be taken into custody to serve out the sentences awarded to each of them.The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by A-3 and A-6 stand cancelled forthwith.373. A-3 and A-6 shall not, from this moment till their surrender, leave the NCT of Delhi in the meanwhile and each of them shall immediately Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 202 of 203 provide to the CBI the addresses and mobile number(s) where each of them can be contacted.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 202 of 203By a common judgment passed today in Crl.A.1099/2013 (State through CBI v. Sajjan Kumar & Ors.) (certified copy placed below) and Connected Appeals, including the present one, this Court has partly allowed the CBI's appeal and dismissed the present appeal.The impugned judgment dated 30th April 2013 and order on sentence dated 9th May 2013 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, North-east District, Karkardooma Courts in SC No.26/2010 is affirmed.Additionally, in the connected appeal Crl.A.1099/2013 preferred by the CBI, the Appellant is further convicted and sentenced for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B read with Crl.A. 710/2014 Page 1 of 2(iii) Section 295 IPC, to RI for two years.All sentences, including those awarded by the trial Court, to run concurrently.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.A majority of the perpetrators of these horrific mass crimes, enjoyed political patronage and were aided by an indifferent law enforcement agency.The criminals escaped prosecution and punishment for over two decades.It took as many as ten Committees and Commissions for the investigation into the role of some of them to be entrusted in 2005 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), 21 years after the occurrence.The present appeals arise as a result of the investigation by the CBI into the killing of five Sikhs in the Raj Nagar Part I area in Palam Colony in South West Delhi on 1st and 2nd November 1984 and the burning down of a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar Part II.Three years later, the trial court convicted five of the accused: three of them for the offences of armed rioting and murder and two of them for the offence of armed rioting.The convicted accused as well as the CBI appealed to this Court.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 203In the judgment that follows this Court has partly allowed CBIs appeal and reversed the acquittal of Sajjan Kumar.This Court has convicted him for the offences of criminal conspiracy and abetment in the commission of the crimes of murder, promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of communal harmony, defiling and destruction of the Gurudwara by burning.Further while affirming the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court to the other five accused, this Court has additionally convicted and sentenced them for the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit the aforementioned crimes.The accused in this case have been brought to justice primarily on account of the courage and perseverance of three eyewitnesses.Jagdish Kaur whose husband, son and three cousins were the five killed; Jagsher Singh, another cousin of Jagdish Kaur, and Nirpreet Kaur who saw the Gurudwara being burnt down and her father being burnt alive by the raging mobs.It is only after the CBI entered the scene, that they were able to be assured and they spoke up.Admirably, they stuck firm to their truth at the trial.(iii) For the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, all five convicted accused were sentenced to three years' RI along with payment of a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed Crl.A.1099/2013 challenging the complete acquittal of A-1 and the acquittal of the other accused for the other charges framed against them.The complainant, Jagdish Kaur (PW-1), had also preferred Crl.A.850/2013 against the acquittal of A-1 which was subsequently withdrawn, with this Court Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 203 granting her liberty to address arguments in Crl.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 203The convicted accused, have filed separate appeals.A.861/2013 has been preferred by A-2, Crl.A.715/2013 by A-3, Crl.Charges framed against A-1Eighthly, they were charged with having committed dacoity while being members of the aforementioned unlawful assembly in H.No.RZ-1/129 & RZ-15, which belonged to the deceased persons, and were thereby guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 149 IPC.Lastly, they were charged with destroying/damaging/ Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 203 defiling a place of worship, i.e. the Raj Nagar Gurudwara held sacred by the Sikh community, while being members of the aforementioned unlawful assembly with the common intention of insulting the Sikh religion and were thereby guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 295 read with Section 149 IPC.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 203A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 203 being the daughter of his fathers sister (bua).According to her, A-2, A-3, and A-6 then came to the spot and sought a Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 14 of 203 compromise.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 14 of 203Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 15 of 203Therefore, from the deposition of PW-10, two incidents emerge.The first is the attack on the Raj Nagar Gurudwara in the morning of 1st November 1984 and the second, the killing of Nirmal Singh.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 19 of 203After A-1s departure, the mob proceeded to loot and ransack the house of PW-6 and his brothers.They set fire to a motorcycle and a scooter and, ultimately, the house itself.The fire caused damage to the electric cables running above the house, causing the electricity to shut down.Thereafter, the mob went to the house of DW-2 and then to the house of PW-3, accusing them of sheltering Sikhs.The mob ultimately retreated but kept roaming in the area.However, before the said Committee could complete the exercise, the Central Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 23 of 203 Government set up a one-man Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 (CoI Act) comprising Justice Ranganath Misra.The statements recorded by the Marwaha Committee were to be handed over and examined by the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission.But, for unexplained reasons, this was not done.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 23 of 20344. PW-1 submitted an affidavit dated 7th September 1985 before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission (Ex.She described the mob as being well organised and named A-2 as being involved in the murders of her husband and son.She also named A-4 and A-5 as being part of the mob involved in the murders of her three cousin brothers.According to the prosecution, although the above charge sheets ended in acquittals in 1986 itself, this was a mere eyewash as a result of manipulation, both by the Delhi Police and the prosecution.In 1992, the Jain-Aggarwal Committee in its report recommended, inter alia, further investigations into the cases concerning the attack on the house of Jasbir Singh and the incident involving the deaths of Kehar Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Narender Pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh, and Kuldeep Singh.In the matter of the attack on the house of Jasbir Singh, a supplementary charge sheet was filed on 26th February 1993 against four accused, viz. Sunil Tiwari @ Raju, Hukum Chand, Mangat Ram, and Balwan Khokar.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 24 of 203This statement was originally recorded in Urdu and therein she states that her son and husband were killed by a mob of 250-300 men but she could not identify any of the people who were part of the mob.She stated that she could identify them if they were brought before her.This statement has been denied by the CBI."Many witnesses have stated about the involvement of S/Shri Sajjan Kumar, Balwan Khokar, Pratap Singh, Maha Singh and Mohinder Singh in the riots in areas like Palam Colony, Tilak Vihar, Raj Nagar etc. It was alleged that the mobs indulging in riots were led by Shri Sajjan Kumar and Shri Balwan Khokhar and other Congress leaders.Police did not even record the complaints of the victims/witnesses against them.Instead complaints of losses were recorded by the Police.Other local persons who have been named by the witnesses as the persons who had taken a leading part in the attacks on Sikhs are Rohtas, Ram Kumar and Ved Prakash.Thereafter, the following conclusions were recorded in the chargesheet:"16.14 The investigation further established that provocative speeches, with common object as aforesaid, made by Sajjan Kumar (A-1) to the mob gathered in Raj Nagar area, promoted immediate and violent enmity amongst the public against Sikhs and disturbed the harmony between the two religious groups/communities of the locality resulting into killing of Sikhs and burning/looting of their houses/properties.Thus, Sajjan Kumar (A-1) instigated the mob and other accused persons including Balwan Khokhar (A-2), Mahender Yadav (A-3), Maha Singh (A-4), Baghmal (A-5), Santosh Rani Janta Hawaldarni (A-6), Girdhari Lal (A-7), Krishan Khokhar (A-8), lshwar Chand Gaur @ Chand Sharabi (since expired), Balidan Singh (since expired), Dharamveer Singh (since expired), Raja Ram (since expired) and other unknown persons formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like iron rods, lathis, kerosene oil, etc. for the purpose of committing various criminal acts of murder, dacoity and destruction of the property of Sikh Community.The said unlawful assembly also defiled the Gurudwara in Raj Nagar area with intention to insult the religion of Sikh community."Subsequently, charges were framed by the trial Court on 24th May 2010 in the manner referred to hereinabove.Among the 17 witnesses examined by the prosecution were Additional Superintendent of Police (Addl.15) of the CBI and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy. SP) Anil Kumar Yadav (PW-17) of the CBI who prepared the charge sheet.The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr PC were recorded and reference to these shall be made subsequently when this Court considers each of the appeals of the accused independently.In all, 17 defence witnesses were examined.Their depositions will be discussed along with the individual cases of the accused on behalf of whom they were examined.In the impugned judgment dated 30th April 2013, the trial Court came to the following conclusions:(i) Judicial notice could be taken from the Justice Nanavati Commission report of the fact that there were as many as 341 killings in the Delhi Cantonment area and five of those killings form the subject matter of the present case.(ii) From the Daily Diary Register (DDR) (Ex. PW-16/A) maintained at Police Post (PP) Palam Colony, it appeared that "not a single incident of any killing or any property destroyed was recorded by the police".The police appeared to be privy to the incident of rioting and remained a silent spectator.(iii) The police arrived at the Raj Nagar Gurudwara and disarmed the Sikhs of their kirpans and soon thereafter the mob again arrived there.There was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-7 on Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 32 of 203 this point, which reflects a serious lapse on the part of the police entrusted with the law enforcement duty.(vi) Balwinder Singh (PW-4) had submitted two reports dated 12th November 1984 (Ex.PW-4/A & B) to the SHO of PS Delhi Cantonment about the killing of his two brothers Raghuvinder Singh and Narender Pal Singh as well as the killing of Kuldeep Singh.Specific mention was made in these reports of A-4, A-5, Balidan Singh, Dharamveer Singh, Ashok, and Chand.However, no FIR was registered in this regard.(vii) The evidence of PWs 1, 6, and 10 had to be appreciated in the peculiar background of no action being taken by the police in FIR No.416/1984 or in respect of the numerous complaints that had been clubbed with it.(viii) The evidence of PW-1 was most natural and without exaggeration or Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 33 of 203 falsehood.There was no inconsistency in the narration of facts by PW-1 in her affidavit before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission as well as what she had deposed in the Court.PW-1 identified A-2 along with others as being members of the mob which killed her husband and son.There was no reason why she would substitute the assailants names which also appear in Ex.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 33 of 203(ix) There was also no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 that she herself performed the cremation of her husband and son on 3rd November 1984 by preparing the funeral pyre using furniture and household articles available in the house.Her evidence proved that A-2 was part of the rioting mob and had committed the murder of her husband Kehar Singh and son Gurpreet Singh.PW-1 was also believable with regard to her eye witness account of murder of her cousins Narender Pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh, and Kuldeep Singh.She named A-4 and A-5 along with others as being members of the mob which killed them.(x) The charges of rioting against the accused stood proved when examined in light of the testimonies of PWs 7 and 10 as well as Manjit Singh (PW-12).It was concluded:Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 34 of 203"It is a matter of fact that Sardar Nirmal Singh taken away by accused persons from that place was later on found murdered but then that criminal offence of murder of Nirmal Singh stood tried separately as FIR 416/84 wherein present case witness PW10 Nirpreet Kaur daughter of Nirmal Singh and Smt. Sampuran Kaur wife of Nirmal Singh had been cited as eyewitness and that trial ended by an order of acquittal and admittedly Nirpreet Kaur and Sampuran Kaur shad not been examined in that trial and that acquittal judgement had been passed in 1986 itself.Testimony of PW7 is acceptable to the extent and effect of the rioting mob appeared near Gurudwara on 02.11.1984 and accused of the present case namely Bhagmal, Balwan Khokar, Krishan Khokar and Mahender Yadav were part of that rioting mob and mob was armed with weapons, lathis, and sarias."(xi) However, there were reservations in accepting and believing the testimony of PW-7 with respect to the attack on the Raj Nagar Gurudwara since no evidence was available as to "what extent that burning damage to the Gurudwara had occurred".There was also no further evidence as to whether the truck of Harbans Singh was "set on fire by the mob on that occasion".The evidence of PW-7 was held to have been corroborated by PW-10.It was concluded that:"there was a rioting mob and it was armed with weapons like lathis and rods and they did indulge in violence.Accordingly I find these accused persons namely Balwan Khokar, Krishan Khokar, Mahender Yadav and Captain Bhagmal are liable to be convicted for offences of rioting and the unlawful assembly of those rioters armed with deadly weapons and this offence committed by accused on 01.11.1984 at around 7.30 pm near Gurudwara Rajnagar stands duly proved and these four accused persons are liable to be convicted u/S 147 and 148 IPC."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 35 of 203(xii) As regards the specific role of A-1, the contention of the defence that the averment in the second page of the affidavit of PW-1 (Ex.PW-1/B) attributing specific words spoken by A-1 at Mandir Manglapuri on the morning of 2nd November 1984 appeared to be manipulated when seen in the context of her statement (Ex.PW-1/C) made on 8th January 2002 was "not to be brushed aside".Her statement suggested that the information concerning A-1 was based on hearsay.(xiii) If indeed PW-1 witnessed A-1 speaking those words, then in the first instance before the Justice Nanavati Commission, she would have disclosed it.If A-1 was involved in the incident, then in the report submitted by PW-4 to the police on 12th November 1984, his role ought to have been mentioned.Therefore, there was a serious doubt as to the veracity of PW-6 as regards A-1s role.When her statement initially was recorded in 1985, she had not named A-1 at all.In her affidavit before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission, PW-1 did not mention A-1 in any manner, although the Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 36 of 203 other accused had been named.In the circumstances, the testimony of PW-1 that she had heard and seen A-1 addressing a gathering with provocative and instigating utterances was not acceptable and believable.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 36 of 203After recording the aforementioned findings in its judgment, the trial Court proceeded to acquit A-1 of all charges while convicting the other accused, i.e. A-2 to A-6, in the manner indicated hereinbefore.The convicted accused were sentenced in terms of the order on sentence dated 9th May 2013 in the manner indicated hereinbefore.Appeals against the acquittal of A-1"Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in case the appellants are permitted to address arguments in the appeal filed by the State and also permitted to raise the grounds of appeal as mentioned in the present appeal.It may be noticed that by a separate order passed in Criminal Leave to Appeal No.385/2013 filed by the State, this court has granted leave to appeal to the appellant / State.Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with the following agreed directions:(i) Appellants would be entitled to be represented before this court at the time of hearing of the appeal filed by the State and would be entitled to raise all grounds which have been raised in the present appeal.(ii) A copy of the grounds of appeal will be tagged with Criminal Appeal filed by the State, which is yet to be registered.(iii) All grounds urged in the instant appeal bearing Crl.Prosecution's submissions as regards A-1Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 38 of 203Although 341 Sikhs were killed in the Delhi Cantonment area, in the 21 FIRs registered at PS Delhi Cantonment, only 15 pertained to deaths and murders.He pointed out that, in the first phase, Delhi Police had hardly investigated these cases.Mr. Cheema then discussed the statements of PW-1 made at various stages.According to him, she was a woman of extraordinary courage who made repeated attempts to report the matter to the appropriate authorities even while exposing herself to palpable risk.She had no faith in the Delhi Police and, from her point of view, there was no purpose in her pursuing or asking for justice from a police force which had connived with the accused.Mr. Cheema submitted that she was a woman with an extraordinary memory.She was subjected to a long cross-examination running into 78 pages.According to Mr. Cheema, an objective evaluation of her testimony showed that, despite the traumatising events and the long shadow of post- riots existence, she could still recall the events with precision and this made her a wholly reliable witness.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 40 of 203Mr. Cheema referred to the deposition of Head Constable (HC) Rajender Singh (PW-16), one of the two officials at the PP Palam Colony who was responsible for maintenance of the DDR.He proved the contents of the DDR for the period between 24th/25th September 1984 and 6th/7th November 1984 exhibited as Ex.PW-16/A. In this entire register pertaining to said period, not a single report of any untoward incident had been recorded.When at least 30 persons were killed in the area and their killings formed the subject matter of FIR No.416/1984, the silence of the DDR on these details was "shockingly revealing".Therefore, there was no question of PW-1s statement being incorporated in the said register.The prosecution proved each of the entries in Ex.PW-16/A. Mr. Cheema invited attention to entry Ex.PW-16/F-18 dated 3rd November 1984 which showed that a Sub Inspector (SI), the author of the entry, had returned from Safdarjung Hospital on his official motorcycle having recorded the statements of Sardar Singh and Sarjit Singh in the said hospital.It was recorded that, on 1st November 1984, some persons had injured them in a quarrel.He referred to another Entry No.24 (Ex.PW- 16/G-24) dated 4th November 1984, recorded at 10:30 pm which gave Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 41 of 203 details as to what transpired in the house of PW-3, as noted by SI Ram Niwas.According to him, the DDR showed that the police personnel were regularly going to the affected area, but intentionally did not report any untoward incident.A meaningful look at the entries, according to him, would show that in view of the disturbed condition, apart from the local police, other forces, including the RAC, had been requisitioned.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 41 of 203Mr. Cheema further pointed out that PW-1 had denied having made the statement dated 20th January 1985 (Ex.DW-4/B) which was purportedly recorded by SI Arjun Singh and proved through ACP Ashok Kumar Saxena (Retd.) (DW-4).Mr. Cheema pointed out that even PW-15 took a forthright stand that the said statement was not proved and the veracity thereof was doubtful.According to him, a reading of the Hindi version showed that it had been tailor-made to screen the offenders.The evidence of PW-17 showed that the notice to PW-1 for recording her statement was received by the SSP, Amritsar on 31st December 1992, but could not be Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 42 of 203 served upon her for want of an address.Therefore, there was no question of her suddenly appearing voluntarily before the Riot Cell officer.Even SI Man Chand (DW-16) knew nothing as to when the said statement came into existence.DW-16 also admitted that the statements of female witnesses are not recorded at the PS but, as a matter of practice, at their places of residence.Mr. Cheema also referred to numerous infirmities in the said document, which will be discussed hereinafter in this judgment.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 42 of 203Mr. Cheema further pointed out that, as regards the writings on the two summonses (Ex.PW-1/DX & DY) under Section 160 Cr PC, PW-1 denied the genuineness of the writings above her signatures on each document.She denied having given any dictation and also asserted that the Hindi writing was not that of her daughter (in Ex.PW-1/DX) or her son (in Ex.She clarified that her signatures were obtained only on the summonses without any endorsements being made thereon.Mr. Cheema also referred to the cross-examination of Inspector Sushil Kumar (DW-15) to buttress the above submissions that the entire document was manipulated.Mr. Cheema pointed out that, as regards the statement before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission, PW-1 had explained that she made her statement in Punjabi and the contents thereof were also recorded in Punjabi but that the person again came with the purported English translation of the same which she signed, believing that the contents were the same.In other Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 43 of 203 words, the English translation was not read over and explained to her and she signed it in good faith.She claimed that she had named A-1 in the said affidavit.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 43 of 203However, in relation to her testimony on the role of A-1, the learned trial Court Judge had given a rather stray finding and had arbitrarily rejected her testimony.Complainant's submissions as regards A-1He next pointed out that in the investigation in FIR No.67/1987 registered at PS Nangloi, the statement of one Gurbachan Singh was recorded in which A-1 had been named.However, the police recommended the filing of the closure report.The prosecution branch disagreed and recommended the filing of the charge sheet.Subsequently, the police dropped the name of A-1 and filed the charge sheet naming the other accused persons.The charge sheet in FIR No.67/1987 was tagged with this and A-1 was never made an accused.Nevertheless, till date, the said challan had not been filed in Court.The case ultimately was decided by the D&SJ by a judgment dated 20th September 2014, acquitting the accused.An appeal thereagainst, being Crl.The functioning of both Houses of Parliament got stalled for about three days due to protests by members of the Opposition.Only thereafter did the Central Government agree to register the case.Mr. Phoolka stressed that given the influence of A-1 and the impunity with which he has conducted himself since 1984, witnesses or victims could not be reasonably expected to risk their lives and those of their loved ones unless assured of their safety and of action taken on their complaints in accordance with law.He also pointed out that Baldev Khanna (DW-8) was a saviour but then appeared for the accused as a witness.In subsequently filing an application (Ex.The other category mentioned was the cases that were terminated as untraced.While referring to the Action Taken Report (Ex.DW-14/A), Mr. Sibal classified the accused persons into two categories: those who had been Crl.Mr. Sibal then pointed out that an application was filed on 2nd December 2015 (Ex.PW-15/DA) for grant of permission to conduct "further investigation".Mr. Sibal further pointed out that the case was then re-opened on the basis of a letter dated 25th January 2002 from the Delhi Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee (DGPC) to the then Lieutenant Governor of Delhi (LG of Delhi) as PW-1 was available and wanted the case to be investigated.Pursuant thereto, Inspector Sunil Kumar Vashisht (DW-15) was entrusted with further investigation.He summoned PW-1 on several dates but she did not respond.DW-15 then personally went to Amristar on 13th January 2003 for recording of her statement but she refused to join the investigation and gave in writing through her daughter Gurjeet Kaur in Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 53 of 203 Hindi that she did not wish to join the investigation and that she could not identify anyone.PW-1 had voluntarily signed the statement that she was not making any statement under pressure.Mr. Sibal submitted that Inspector Rakesh (DW-17) also made efforts to get PW-1 to join the investigation but she again gave in writing through her son Gurdeep Singh that she was ill and could not appear before the Court.He submitted that, as per the endorsement in Hindi, she had stated that she could not identify any person involved after 20-21 years nor could she join investigation.Information of the filing of the closure report was sent to her but she did not file any protest petition.It was his submission that the CBI did not ask the Riot Cell not to proceed with the closure report.He also referred to a letter dated 28th July 2008 from the Riot Cell to the CBI.On the question of registration of FIR in the Delhi Cantonment area, it is submitted that FIRs are normally registered at the Police Station (PS) and not at the Police Post (PP).Mr. Sibal then focused on the charges framed against A-1 and pointed out that two of those charges, i.e. the first and second articles of charge, refer to the date of entering into the alleged conspiracy as 31st October 1984 but no evidence had been adduced in that regard.There was no such allegation in the charge sheet and no evidence was led before the trial Court.Specifically, his submission was as under:This charge was framed in continuation of the first charge and again, there was no evidence led in respect thereof.With the fourth article of charge under Section 505 IPC not being pressed for want of sanction, only the third article of charge was left, i.e. on 1st/2nd November 1984, A-1 delivered fiery and provocative speeches to the mob gathered in that area and instigated and promoted violent enmity against the Sikh community and created feelings of enmity and disturbed harmony thereby committing an offence under Section 153A IPC.In fact, prior to her filing the affidavit (Ex.PW-1/B) before the Commission, nobody had named A-1 in relation to the present case.The first was the complaint given by her on 3 rd November 1984 at PP Palam Colony which was not traceable.Mr. Sibal pointed out the references made by her to said complaint in various statements made by her under Sections 161 and 164 Cr PC and submitted that she was constantly changing her statement.Further, no notice was given to any authority with regard to said complaint having gone missing.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 56 of 203Making reference to various portions of the evidence in this regard, Mr. Sibal maintained that said statements were genuine and were indeed made by PW-1 in the course of investigations carried out by the Delhi Police and the Riot Cell.The third category of statements were those made before the CoIs constituted in the wake of the riots.This order, it seems, has attained finality with no appeal being filed against it.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 57 of 203The fourth category of statements referred to were those recorded by during investigation of the present case.Under this category there were four statements that were recorded, i.e. the statement dated 23rd May 2006 recorded by the CBI under Section 161 Cr PC (Ex.PW-1/DA), the statement dated 10th December 2008 recorded by the MM under Section 164 Cr PC (Ex.PW-1/E), the supplementary statement dated 4 th September 2009 (Ex.PW-1/DB), and the supplementary statement dated 11th April 2009 (Ex.PW-17/DB) both recorded by the CBI.It is argued that these statements elicited no response from PW-1 as to the contents of earlier statements made by her with regard to this case to the police or to the affidavits and statements submitted by her before the Justice Ranganath Misra and Justice Nanavati Commissions.PW-1/D) she did not name any accused.Mr. Sibal then went on to discuss the affidavit sworn by PW-1 before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission (Ex.PW-1/A).Furthermore, he drew attention to the fact that the name of A-1 was not mentioned in any manner whatsoever nor any role, direct or indirect, attributed to him.It is his submission that she gave this statement at a time when the situation in Punjab was under control and she was employed at that time at the stitching/sewing centre run by the Government.She had also stated that she was not scared or under any threat or pressure from any corner whatsoever.PW-1/B) that PW-1 named A-1 for the first time, 15 years after the alleged incident.He submitted that, in this statement, she described the same events with a completely different story.He argued that even regarding the killing of her three cousins, PW-1 had given different versions of the events.His name had been introduced for the first time Crl.He also made a statement under Section 164 Cr PC dated 10th December 2008 (Ex.PW-6/A).Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 60 of 203According to Gurcharan Singh, the only two persons who witnessed the death of his sons were his daughters-in-law Daljeet Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur.These two were arrayed as prosecution witnesses but were subsequently dropped.There was a gap of 1 years between statements of PWs 1 and 6 under Section 161 Cr PC to the CBI.Mr. Sibal submitted that PW-6 contradicted himself while deposing in the trial and was confronted with his previous statement under Section 161 Cr PC where he had stated that when A-1 came he did not emerge from the house of PW-3 nor did he join the people gathered there whereas in his statement under Section 164 Cr PC, he mentioned that A-1 came in his Ambassador car and after he left, the rioters attacked their house.It is Mr. Sibals contention that there was a material change in the deposition of PW-6 in the Court when compared to his previous statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr PC.If indeed this had happened, PW-1 would have spoken about this, since her house was situated nearby.At no point did PW-6 Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 61 of 203 mention seeing either PW-1 or her children in the house of PW-3, where he was supposedly taking shelter.If PW-1 had come to the house of PW-3 to drop her children off for safekeeping, it is odd that PW-6 made no mention of this.Reference is also made to the deposition of PW-3 who nowhere admitted to giving shelter to PW-6 in his house.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 61 of 203The further submission is that the factum of PW-6 being mona and therefore not identifiable as a Sikh found no mention in the statements of PW-6 under Sections 161 and 164 Cr PC.Reference to this was made for the first time while deposing in the trial.This too made him an unreliable witness.Likewise, his role in bringing DW-1 to rescue PW-1, his bhabhis, and their children was also highly doubtful and improbable.Turning to the deposition of PW-10, Mr. Sibal submitted that she maintained her silence on the matter for 24 years before speaking up when her statement under Section 161 Cr PC dated 5th December 2008 (Ex.PW-10/DA) was recorded by the CBI.It is argued that, thereafter, in her statement under Section 164 Cr PC dated 21st January 2009 (Ex.PW-1/A), her version was changed to support that of PW-1 so that it may suit the prosecution case.There was no question of clubbing several complaints pertaining to several deaths in one FIR.There were extensive arguments advanced as regards the roznamcha of PP Palam Colony.Entry No.18 dated 3rd November 1984 (Ex.PW-16/F-18) shows that the SI made the entry after he returned from Safdarjung Hospital on his motorcycle and recorded the statements of Sardar Singh and Sarjit Singh.Those two persons had stated that on 1 st November 1984, some persons had injured them in a quarrel.Entry No.24 dated 4th November 1984 (Ex.PW-16/G-24) was recorded at 10:30 pm which states that the SI accompanied by two Constables returned after patrolling PP area and had brought with them six persons, including PW-3, having arrested them under Sections 101 and 151 Cr PC.The door of the house was opened and the SI went inside but Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 67 of 203 even on being advised, the six persons present there, continued raising those slogans and finding no alternative, the SI arrested those persons and detained them in the lockup of PS Delhi Cantonment.It is clear, therefore, that in those chaotic conditions, the local police force was inadequate for the task at hand.There are two other entries at Entry No.22 entered by Constable Nafe Singh (Ex.PW-16/E-22) at 3:30 am on 3rd November 1984 that he along with "fellow outer-post RAC returned to the PP after patrolling the area".Entry Nos. 9, 10, 22, and 32 from 8 am onwards on 3rd November 1984 shows the presence of the RAC in the area.HC Rajender Singh (PW-16) proved the above DDR and deposed that it was "maintained in the normal course of official functioning of the police station".He was posted at PP Palam Colony at the relevant time.He proved each of the aforementioned entries.He admitted during his cross- examination that "it is correct that during this period, force from outside was also requisitioned".The fact remained that this DDR is completely silent about the commission of any cognizable offence although as many as 30 murders occurred in the Raj Nagar area itself.There is a lot of emphasis placed by Mr. Sibal on the factum of registration of the FIRs.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 69 of 203 was my report incorporated in a register though I had asked for the copy of the same.When I was making my report, the Incharge of the Police Post had threatened me saying "hosh me to ho, jin admiyon ke naam likha rahi ho jitney shakti shali hain, aap apna baki pariwar kahan le jain gi."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 69 of 203In her affidavit filed before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission (Ex.PW-1/A), PW-1 made a reference to the above statement.She again made such reference in her affidavit and statement before the Justice Nanavati Commission (Ex.PW-1/B and Ex.PW-1/C).The relevant extract of the portion of her statement before the Justice Nanavati Commission reads as under:"...I had spent the night there and then next day in the morning i.e. on 3rd November, 1984, I again went to my house.I saw that the mob was looting our house and had taken out the dead bodies of my husband and son.I then collected partly burnt chairs etc. And with such material cremated my husband and son at that place.I had again gone to Shri Om Parkashs house and from there I had gone to Palam Nagar Police Station where I gave my complaint.[Learned counsel from Delhi Police Shri S.S Gandhi stated that as a general complaint was already recorded by Palam Nagar Police Station as FIR No. 416, her complaint was made a part of it].Though police officials Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 70 of 203 had taken me to police post only on the asking of those good persons, I cannot say if on 3.11.1984 police officials were not against me.Behaviour of the police who took me in the vehicle to the police post was not bad."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 70 of 203It is a fact that the said statement made by her on 3 rd November 1984 was not available before the trial Court.If she had gone to the PP and given that statement, it should have found mention in the FIR.Although the DDR exhibited in the present case is for the period from 24th/25th September 1984 to 6th/7th November 1984, there is not a single entry which mentions her visit to the PP.This too was rejected.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 75 of 203 night, some people came there and removed the burnt dead body of her husband, which was never traced.Sukhbir Singh went to the, spot and made preliminary enquiries.Later on, he sent a ruqqa to the police station for the registration of a case u/s 147; 148, 149, 395, 196 IPC.Then, he recorded the statements of various witnesses who were the target of looting, arson and assault.The SI collected the MLCs from the hospital and in view of the medical reports, further recommended the inclusion of Sections 307, 324 and 302 IPC."The judgment also noted the dissatisfaction with the progress of the investigation and the public clamour surrounding it which resulted in the constitution of the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission under the CoI Act on 26th April 1985, inter alia, to find out whether "there was any organized mob violence at the behest of Congress workers and if there was, then suggest ways and means to punish the guilty".Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 76 of 203This Court went on to note that despite acknowledging that rioting in a proper sense had started in a very big way in several parts of Delhi on 31st October 1984 with the murders of Sikhs commencing on 1st November 1984, the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission gave the Congress Party a clean chit by observing:This Court, in its judgment deciding the anticipatory bail application of A-1, noted that on 22nd March 1990, another Committee comprising of Justice P. S. Poti, a former Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, and Mr. P. A. Rosha, a retired officer of the Delhi Police, was constituted.This committee recommended that a case be registered and investigated by the CBI in relation to the omission to register a case and investigate the offences alleged in the affidavit of Anwar Kaur.The CBI then registered FIR No.On 11th September 1990, it organized a raiding party to search A-1s house and arrest him.That very night, the learned Single Judge of this Court granted A-1 anticipatory bail in light of certain extraordinary circumstances which were noted as under:"When the officer of the CBI went to the house of the petitioner at A-713, Janta Flats, Paschimpuri, at 6:45 A.M. in order to conduct search of the house and to arrest him, according to the affidavit of Shri G.S. Kapila, Dy.I have gone through all the documents annexed with this charge sheet.The second one was sent in the court of ld.MM, Patiala House Courts.From the Delhi Police records forwarded to CBI by Ministry of Home Affairs, I came to know about the aforesaid investigations."There was a further questioning of PW-17 on the third investigation which was ordered in the year 2002 and which was conducted by the Riot Cell.According to him there was "nothing like third investigation by the riot cell and they had simply continued their investigation as per the reference made by the Jain Aggarwal Committee.The same was ultimately filed as untraced report in 2005".PW-17 also admitted having gone through the judicial records of FIR No.416/1984 in the learned MMs Court and stated as under:I had gone through this entire closure report.I had seen the letter dated 10.01.2002 on judicial file of FIR no.416/84 PS Delhi Cantt.it is a letter from Sh.Kulmohan Singh, General Secretary, Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee requesting for reopening of the case in view of the availability of Smt. Jagdish Kaur.The argument that the charge sheet filed in the present case should have made reference to the allegations of mishandling of the investigations undertaken by the Delhi Police and the Riot Cell is without basis.This became abundantly clear in the trial and through the documents brought on record as well as the statement of the witnesses.Consequently, the Court is not impressed with the argument that the CBI targeted A-1 and the other accused and deliberately misrepresented the records to secure their convictions.Delhi Police has made this case a part of FIR No. 416 of 1984 registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt.In this FIR, 24 complaints were investigated pertaining to more than 60 deaths in the area.As many as 5 charge- sheets were filed by Delhi Police relating to 5 deaths which resulted in acquittals.After filing of the closure report in the present case, on 31-7- 2008, a status report was filed by Delhi Police before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.The closure report was filed by Delhi Police on 15-12-2005/22-12-2005, when a case had already been registered by CBI on 22-11-2005 and the documents had already been transferred to the respondent CBI.At the same time, the appellant has also filed a petition for discharge raising various grounds in support of his claim.The Supreme Court made a note of the conclusion reached by the Delhi Police in its status report dated 31st July 2008 as under:Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 86 of 203"From the investigation and verification made so far it was revealed that:(b) The complaints and affidavits made by Smt Jagdish Kaur are having huge contradictions:(i) In her first statement recorded by local police during the investigation, she did not name any person specifically and also stated that she could not identify anyone among the mob.(iii) She suspected the involvement of one congress leader Balwan Khokar in these riots but she had not seen him personally.She was told by one Om Prakash who was the colleague of her husband, about the killing of her husband and son.In the statement recorded on 22-1-2993 under Section 161 Cr PC during the course of further investigation, the witness Om Prakash stated that he had seen nothing about the riots.Jagdish Kaur stayed at his house from 1-11-1984 to 3-11-1984 but she did not mention the name of any person who was indulged in the killing of her husband and son."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 87 of 203The Supreme Court, therefore, considered it necessary to observe that since the learned MM had declined to give any definite opinion about the closure report, as the same was under investigation by the CBI, "no further probe/enquiry on this aspect is required".Question framed in this order is accordingly answered to the effect that bar under section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act will be attracted so far as witness Smt. Jagdish Kaur has been confronted or sought to be contradicted with her affidavit Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B and her statement Ex.The implication would be that the affidavits Ex.PW1/A & B and statement PW1/C and the deposition to this effect will not be read in favour of prosecution and against the accused."This Court accordingly set aside the order dated 2nd June 2012 of the trial Court and directed that whole of the examination-in-chief and cross- examination of PW-1 with respect to Ex.PW-1/A to C will be read in evidence.These circumstances have been adverted to earlier.As far as statement dated 7th and 13th March 2002 of the prosecutrix are concerned, these cannot be scrutinized properly unless we advert to the most important aspect of the case, i.e., the investigation.The investigation remained with Limkheda Police and thereafter with Gujarat CID."That I can identify the leader of the mob Mr. Sajjan Kumar M.P. because few days back he visited our mohalla regarding sewerage water problem.Local congress worker Sh.Mann Singh Chand & Capt.Bhag Mal were also accompanying this mob."The third mention of A-1 in the affidavit is in para 9 which is as under:"That on 2.11.1984 in the morning when I approached the police station in the way near mandir Manglapuri abovesaid M.P. Sajjan Kumar was organising a meeting and addressing that "Sardar Sala Koi Nahi Bachna Chahida" & any Hindu if found giving shelter to them should also be burned."The documents placed on record about her loss claim made on 13th November 1984, no doubt only indicates the loss of property but this, given the circumstances spoken to above, can hardly be said to discredit her Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 97 of 203 testimony.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 97 of 203Her statement as recorded by SI Arjun Singh on 20th January 1985 (Ex. DW-4/B) does not inspire much confidence.The documents show that she perhaps was not in Delhi at that time.The two IOs from the CBI, viz. PWs 15 and 17, have verified these details to be correct.Although ACP Ashok Kumar Saxena (DW-4) sought to prove the said statement, he himself admitted that he was not conversant in the Urdu language.On the other hand, PW-15 was clear that the veracity of that statement was doubtful.Likewise, PW-17 deposed that despite his best efforts, SI Arjun Singh who purportedly recorded that statement could not be traced.The Hindi version of the statement shows that it appears to have been tailor-made to screen the offenders.It states how the assailants came from the rear side of the house by breaking the rear wall.This was obviously inserted so that she could not have possibly seen who had murdered her husband and son.Also, this statement is completely silent about the murder of her three brothers.On the document (Ex.DW-16/A), however, her address is given as 1713, Nanakpura, Amritsar, which appears to be lifted from the affidavit filed by her before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission.PW-17 explained that on 28th December 1992, a notice was sent to her for her presence at Delhi.This notice was sought to be served through the SSP, Amritsar.It could not be served for want of address.In the circumstances, it is highly doubtful that she, of her own accord, simply appeared before the Riot Cell.Constable Mohan Singh (DW-13) could not help in proving the handwriting of Inspector B. D. Tyagi.Inspector Man Chand (DW-16), who purportedly identified the handwriting of Inspector B. D. Tyagi, admitted that he knew nothing about the document.He also admitted that a statement of a female witness was ordinarily recorded at her residence and not in the PS.There is no entry in Ex.There is merit in the contention of Mr. Cheema about the said document actually being a forged one.He has pointed out the following factors which bear it out:(i) It shifts the occurrence on 1st November 1984 to 6 am in the morning;(ii) The maker of the statement maintains that she did not identify any member of the mob;(iii) The statement describes Om Parkash as a neighbor; he is proved to have lived at some distance;Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 99 of 203(iv) It is further recorded that she stayed at her house with her children on the night of 2nd November 1984;This statement further records that her cousin brothers were killed on 2nd November 1984 but she knew nothing about that occurrence.It was specifically recorded that she did not know English, obviously to destroy the affidavit marked as Ex.PW-1/A.The endorsements on the summonses under Section 160 Cr PC purportedly made by the daughter and son of PW-1 on the basis of her dictation have also been heavily relied upon by the defence.Therein she is supposed to have stated that she does not want to make any further statement and that she would accept any decision taken by the Government.Inspector Sushil Kumar (DW-15) who was examined for proving Ex.PW- 1/DX claimed that he had made a DDR entry at the PP Sultan Cantonment (District Amritsar), but admitted that he never obtained a copy of the said DDR.He admitted that neither he nor Constable Bhoop Singh, who had accompanied him from Delhi, nor Constable Mangal Dass of the local PP had been made a witness on the reports recorded on the summonses.It might be that she had unwittingly formed such a wrong impression earlier at the first instance or that she herself is Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 102 of 203 innocent of that part of the affidavit.Even in the court she was not able to vouchsafe to the truth of what all things inscribed in the affidavit because apart from the fact that she affixed her signature in the affidavit she did not know what all were written therein.Neither the person who drafted the affidavit nor the typist who typed it has been examined as witness.We are therefore not persuaded to reject the testimony of PW-1 mother merely on the strength of the aforesaid wrong information crept in the affidavit."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 102 of 203Her statements in the cross-examination have been carefully examined by this Court.What she appears to be clear about is that she indeed gave a complaint to the police on 3rd November 1984 and that she did not give any statement either on 20th January 1985 when she was in Amritsar or on 31st December 1992 before the Riot Cell in Delhi.She denied these suggestions categorically.According to PW-1, she did not receive any summons in 2004 stating that she had to make a statement before a Magistrate.As far as the endorsement made on the summons (Ex.PW-1/DC) is concerned, she is clear that only the signature was hers and that the writing was not.When grilled about her naming A-4 and A-5, PW-1 denied the suggestion that she had named them at the instance of the CBI and volunteered that "many persons were residing in the mohalla but I gave the names of only those persons who were the mobsters and not of the entire mohalla".She denied the suggestion that A-4 and A-5 "are nowhere connected with the riots or that they have been made scapegoats".210. PW-1 denied the suggestion put to her that CBI officials showed her and her affidavit before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission (Ex.PW- 1/A) on 11th April 2009 when they recorded her supplementary statement Crl.In her repeated cross-examination by counsel for A-1, she volunteered, "I do not like to speak about Delhi Police because they were the culprits/murderers and killers".PW1/DX and my signature on this summons are at point A and, B Name of my daughter is Gurjeet Kaur.Endorsement on the summons from portion X to X has been read over to the witness and she states that this portion was not dictated by her nor was written at her instance and this endorsement is not in the handwriting of my daughter Gurjeet Kaur.Endorsement from point Y to Y on Ex. PW1/DX is also read over the witness and she states that it was neither written by her daughter nor at her instance.I cannot identify signatures of my daughter.I cannot say if at point C is the signature of my daughter Gurjeet Kaur.This summons was brought at my house at Amritsar.I had simply signed the summons as I was told by them to sign the summons irrespective of the fact whether I wanted to appear before the court at Delhi or not as his senior officer do not believe that the summons have been handed over to me.No such endorsement was made on the summons when I signed the same.PW-1 was also able to denounce the endorsement on the summons (Ex.PW-1/DY) as under:"I have seen summons Ex.PW1/DY, it bears my signature at point A. It is correct that name of my son is Gurdeep Singh.He has come with me today in the court.Q. In your statement Ex.PW1/DA you have stated that" before going to the police post, I learnt that Sajjan Kumar a Member Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 111 of 203 of Parliament was conducting a meeting in that area and whereas in your statement Ex.He also, referred to statement Ex. PW1/DA, where it is recorded "I felt that MP Sajan Kumar would help me in saving the lives of my children and for cremating the dead bodies of my husband and son".I have been stating in all my statements and affidavits that MP Sajjan Kumar came out of the meeting after about 5 minutes and while standing on a jeep he declared.Confronted with statements Ex. PWI/A, Ex. PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex. PW1/E, Mark A, B, C and Ex. PW1/DA, where it is not recorded as such.I do not remember if I made any reference to the meeting addressed by Sajjan Kumar in any of my 'affidavits or statements before giving my affidavit in Nanavati Commission.It is incorrect to suggest that the introduction of Sajjan Kumar and his presence in the meeting was introduced for the first time by the political opponents of Sajjan Kumar and Gurudwara Persons (Akali Dai)."PWl/D that victims of these crimes were to console themselves to bargain a monetary compensation and State machinery was a complete failure and at halt to check those crimes and to listen the victims."In fact, the trial Court on reading Ex.PW-1/B) which she had by and large reiterated in her deposition in the trial without any serious contradiction by the counsel for the accused.She disputed the correctness of the translation of what she had stated before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission particularly on the aspect of her not having named A-1 therein.It also demonstrated the power and influence of the accused and how witnesses could easily be won over.The atmosphere of distrust created as a result of these developments would have dissuaded the victims from coming forward to speak about what they knew.In the context of these cases, the factum of delay cannot be used to the advantage of the accused but would, in fact, explain the minor contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the key eye- witnesses in the present case.Nothing in the deposition of PW-1 points to either untruthfulness or unreliability.Her evidence deserves acceptance.Analysis of the evidence of PW-3The Court next turns to the evidence of PW-3 who turned hostile during the trial.No doubt PW-3 went back on what he told the police Crl.He was clearly a witness who had been won over and this was most unfortunate because it is not even disputed by the defence that PW-3 was a person who helped some of the victims by giving them shelter and having given them safe passage.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 117 of 203He described the locations of the houses of PW-1, PW-6, DW-3, as well as his own.He states how, when he came back home at 9-11 pm on 1st November 1984, he learnt of the murders of Kehar Singh and his son Gurpreet Singh.There was some confusion created by PW-3 as regards the time when the brothers came out from hiding.Importantly, he acknowledges that PW-6 was a resident of the neighbourhood and that he knew him by his nickname Golu."Testimony of PW3 provides a support and corroboration when witness deposed that Kehar Singh and his son were killed by mob on 01.11.1984 and this fact witness came to know when he returned home on that day.Though witness was got declared hostile but even otherwise according to prosecution case he was not an eyewitness of killings of Kehar Singh and his son."However, the trial Court erred in also relying on that portion of his testimony where he turned hostile.He filed two complaints (Ex.PW-4/A and B) concerning the killing of Raghuvinder Singh, Narender Pal Singh, and Kuldeep Singh.PW-4 also proved that PW-6 was in fact a clean shaven Sikh, i.e. a mona Sikh.The following are the material aspects of his deposition:Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 119 of 203(i) That PW-6 was a clean shaven person since his school days.(ii) That PW-6 had been residing with his two other brothers and Kuldeep Singh at H.No.RZ-15, Shiv Mandir Marg and the three brothers were working as MES contractors.(iii) That PW-6 was in Delhi at the relevant time and had met PW-4 in the Gurudwara upon his visit after the occurrence.The trial Court in this regard observed as under:"Documents Ex.PW4/A and B show that a report dated 12.11.1984 was submitted to SHO Delhi Cantt.by PW4 Balvinder Singh and this informant Balvinder is the real brother of two deceased of this case namely Raghuvinder Singh and Narender Pal Singh.These two reports specifically mentioned killings of Raghuvinder Singh and Narender pal Singh and Kuldeep Singh in the incidents of 02.11.1984 at around 06.30 hours and names of culprits were mentioned in these two reports and those were no. 1) Bhagmal Singh, 2) Ex Subedar Baldan Singh, 3) Ashok C/o Ex Subedar Baldan Singh, 4) Dharamvir Singh, 5) Girdhari Lal, 6) Chand.Admittedly no first information report was registered concerning these deaths.Though local police claimed that such kind of complaints being received were being kept with FIR 416/84 no action appeared to have been taken on these reports except the claim of Delhi police to have recorded statement of Jagdish Kaur on 20.01.1985 and her statement again recorded by Riot cell in 1992 and both these statements have been Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 120 of 203 strongly refuted by PW1 to have been given by her to the police.No investigation appeared to have been taken up for those killings of persons despite some of the culprits had been named.I do agree with the arguments and contentions of ld.public prosecutor that evidence of the star witness PW1 Smt. Jagdish Kaur and other two material witnesses PW6 Jagsher and PW10 Nirpreet Kaur and other relevant witnesses is to be appreciated in this peculiar background of the case."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 120 of 203The above analysis appears to be correct.Therefore, PW-4 is also definitely a witness in support of the case of the prosecution.The following suggestion in fact brings this out clearly:"It is incorrect to suggest that I was not in Raj Nagar Area from 31.10.1984 till 03.11.1984 and that I came to Delhi along with my father after the alleged incident.It is also incorrect to suggest that I came to know the facts of this case when I reached Delhi sometime either on 3rd or 4th of November, Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 121 of 203 1984."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 121 of 203If one peruses the statement given by PW-6 under Section 161 Cr PC (Ex.PW-6/DA), it does appear that he spoke clearly.The submission of Mr. Cheema that the defence has split the entire cross-examination of PW-6 into "small disjointed sentences for the purpose of confrontation" is indeed correct.The confrontation portion does not bring out any major contradictions as can be seen below:"I had probably stated before the Magistrate that as soon as I entered that gali I saw one Sikh wrapped in a woollen shawl was running forward by number of persons.I stopped there.The mob called that Sikh gentlemen near the house of one Manjeet Singh Kavi where one electric pole was installed.The mob started beating him with rods and set him on fire when the crowd disturbed a little I went over there and I saw that he was my brother.I identified him as my brother Narender Pal Singh.I identified him by his watch.Confronted with Ex. PW6/a where it was no recorded.However, it is mentioned there that "then I saw that rioters were following one man and I also saw half burned body of Sardar lying there, who was my brother Narender".I do not remember if I stated in my statement before the magistrate that Major Yadav agreed to accompany me in order to save my two other brothers and children.He took one vehicle along with 7-8 jawans from Sikh regiment.However, it is recorded in the statement that "Major Yadav had gone along with this witness".Thereafter, I went to the house of Jagdish Kaur, Jagdish Kaur, her younger son and three daughters were inside the house.I also made them sit in that big vehicle.He firmly denied the suggestion that he had been advised by the CBI to falsely implicate persons.He stated, "I was only speaking the truth that whosoever helped us even that person was arrested".The following question-answer exchange makes his deposition even more trustworthy:"Is it correct that you have deposed before the court on 25.10.2010 that I was working in MES whereas in you statement u/s 161 Cr PC you have stated that my brothers Narender Pal and Raghuvinder Pal were MES contractor and I used to assist them in their work whereas in your examination in chief you have said that I was in MES contractor along with my brothers.All the three versions are correct."That PW-6 was a mona Sikh throughout came across in the following manner:My family were Sikhs by religion.My brothers namely Narender pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh were keshdhari and they were also having beard.I got my haircut from the school time itself.In the year 1984, I was not having any beard as I was 17/18 years old.On the crucial part of him being an eye-witness, he stated as under:"I had stated in my statement to CBI that there was a window above the bed, I stood on the bed and watched from the glass on the upper part of the window, I saw that mob armed with Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 123 of 203 lathies and sariyas had entered into the house of my sister Jagdish Kaur and the side window was completely demolished.The iron gate was also dismantled.However, it is recorded "I stood on the charpai and from the upper part of the window saw number of people (whom I cannot identify) attacking the house of my sister Smt. Jagdish Kaur w/o Kehar Singh".Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 123 of 203Probably I had stated in my statement before the CBI that Kehar Singh fell inside the house itself.However, it is record "from that window pane, I could see that Kehar Singh and his son Gurpreet Singh were dragged out of their house by the mob and attacked them with iron rods.Both of them were crying like hell and mob was then shouting.Kehar Singh fell down there only."It is, therefore seen that a concerted attempt at breaking down PW-6 also failed.The actions of the mob were also spoken to by him at the very first instance as under:"I had stated in my statement that after locking the house when I was going to the house of Rajni and reached Shiv Mandir Marg, I saw mob coming from Palam village side leading to Shiv Mandir Marg and raising slogans.Again said the mob was coming from the road connecting Palam colony with Palam village at the point where a road bifurcates into Shiv Mandir Marg "jo Palam colony se Palam gaon ko road ja rahi hai, uske upar se Shiv Mandir Marg ko ander ko road nikalti hai" I saw the door of the house of Rajni closed, the mob was raising slogans "in sikho ko maro; in gadharo ko maro; Hindustan me ek sikh bhi zinda nahi bachna chahiye".Confronted with statement Ex. PW 6/DA where it is not so recorded.However, it is recorded that "then in order to park our motorcycle inside the house, I came back to our house, park the motorcycle inside the house and was going back to the house of Smt. Rajni when I heard lot of commotion and saw Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 124 of 203 people coming running from the main road side immediately I could make out that rioters have started troubles in our area also, by that time due to that commotion Rajni had locked her house from inside."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 124 of 203The most harrowing moment was him taking the younger son of PW-1 to get his hair cut which is spoken about as under:"I had stated in my statement to CBI that I came out of the house and I was about to enter the house of Ram Avtar Sharma, then I noticed Gurdeep, younger son of Jagdish Kaur, I took him inside the house.I thought he would also be killed, however, I cut his hair with a scissor lying in the house of Ram Avtar Sharma.However, it is recorded "then sensing further trouble I took young Gurdeep s/o Kehar Singh to the residence of Ram Avtar Sharma and cut his hair."These are persons who had suffered tragedies and had no reason to falsely implicate anyone.It is also not as if they were naming all of the accused in a blanket manner.These witnesses have named only the accused to whom they can attribute a discernible role.Whatever material was found lying in the houses with the help of those furniture/ clothes, cremation was done."PW-7 too, in his cross-examination, when asked why he did not prefer to lodge a report to ensure that the culprits were booked as per law, stated "we were very much scared of the police and therefore, I did not go to the police station to lodge report".Analysis of the evidence of PW-12PW-12 was a resident of Raj Nagar, Part-II.His father was plying a taxi.It is significant to note that at the time of riots he was a keshdhari and, by the time of his deposition on 14th February 2011, he was not.He spoke of the attack on the Gurudwara and about the Sikhs initially resisting it and later the mob returning and demolishing it.He spoke also of the slogan shouting in the morning of 2nd November 1984 by a mob which announced that if any Hindu had given shelter to any Sikh, then he should also be finished off.His statement was never recorded by the police but only by the CBI.PW-12 stated that he knew her Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 127 of 203 mother Sampuran Kaur.He comes across as a natural witness who again had no reason to speak falsely.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 127 of 203The presence of PW-7 is affirmed by A-2 himself in his statement under Section 313 Cr PC where he stated as under:What have you to say?It is correct.158.Q. It is further evidence against you that in the morning of 04.11.1984, Joginder Singh went to the Air Force Gurdwara Camp, where he met his wife, mother-in-law, sister-in-law besides many other Sikhs of Palam Colony, he also met Wing Commander Mr. L.S. Pannu and stayed there for about 10 days.Pannu."The criticism of PW-7 that he kept quiet for a long time and did not Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 128 of 203 come forward requires to be rejected for the reasons already discussed hereinbefore.The Delhi Police did not inspire the confidence of the victims to come forward and it is understandable that they waited till the CBI took over to speak.PW-7 explained these circumstances when he stated that "during the riots we had lost everything and had even no food to eat.After this incident we had gone to Amritsar, therefore, my main priority was to earn my livelihood and not to pay attention to other things."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 128 of 203Even when he subsequently gave an affidavit (Ex.PW-7/A), students of Khalsa College, Amritsar had helped.He also pointed out how there was a language problem between him and PW-15 as he was not conversant in the Hindi language.But he had no occasion to go through that affidavit and there was a huge rush and he was made to sign it quickly.Nevertheless, he is indeed an important witness for the prosecution and has corroborated the other witnesses on the material aspect of there being rioting mobs targeting Sikh households and the Gurudwara in the locality.The Court concurs with the analysis of the evidence of PW-7 by the trial Court holding it to be acceptable as far as the attack on the Gurudwara is concerned and the role of A-2, A-3, A-4, and A- 6 being members of that mob.Indeed, PW-7 is a truthful and reliable witness.Analysis of the evidence of PW-10253. PW-10 is another important witness for the prosecution.She was a witness to the happenings at the Raj Nagar Gurudwara which have been Crl.However, she denied having been involved in any terrorist activities.She truthfully gave details of the three cases in which she was implicated.In two of them, she was discharged and in the third, she was acquitted.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 129 of 203The defence had put forth DW-4 who claimed to have recorded her previous statement (Ex.DW-4/A).In the said statement (Ex.DW-4/A), the address given was that of Raj Nagar.255. PW-10 was first examined on 6th January 2011 by way of examination-in-chief.She was an eye witness to the murder of her father Nirmal Singh and the attack on the Gurudwara.She also named A-6 as being part of that mob.She spoke about Nirmal Singh being taken away by A-2 and A-3 on a scooter on the pretext of involving him in the talks for compromise.She Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 130 of 203 saw one Inspector Kaushik giving a match box to A-6 who set her father on fire while the mob had caught hold of him and after Chand Sharabi doused him with kerosene oil.She also spoke about A-4 tying up her father with ropes to a telephone pole after he escaped and jumped into a nala.She stated that the wife of one Dua was contributing kerosene oil and her father was again set on fire.When her father again jumped into the nala, the pujari of the nearby temple called the mob again.This time, A-2 hit her father with a rod and A-3 sprinkled some white powder as a result of which he was burnt.Someone from the mob shouted that his entire family should be killed.PW-10 then rushed towards their house and found her mother lying unconscious and her house burning.The next morning, she got introduced to the Wing Commander L. S. Pannu who had told her that he could provide her with a vehicle and jawans.When she went alone in the vehicle with jawans to Palam Colony, on reaching Manglapuri, she noticed A-1 standing and addressing the mob saying "Ek bhi sardar jinda bachna nahi chahiye" and further "Jo bhi sardaro ko bacha raha hai usse bhi jala do.In Sardaro ko maro inhone hi hamari ma ko mara hai.Ye saap ke bacchhe hai".Summons were first issued on 14th April 1986 and when eye-witnesses, which included PW-10, her mother Sampuran Kaur, and one Constable Paramjeet Singh, did not appear, the case was adjourned to 20th April 1986 when again they were not served.Again, they were not served and the report said that they were untraceable.When they returned in January 1985 to Delhi, they started living in rented accommodation and kept changing houses because "some suspicious elements used to roam near houses and therefore being scared we used to change accommodation".In 1986, they were allotted accommodation with other riot victims at Tilak Vihar.In 1984, PW-10 was 16 years old.After she joined the Sikh Students Federation, she states that they were implicated in three false TADA cases and she remained in jail for many years.She was discharged in two and acquitted in the other.Her statement was first recorded before the learned MM in January 2009 (Ex.PW-10/A).She could correctly identify A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-6 in the trial.Her cross-examination commenced on Crl.Therefore, even PW-10 was grilled day after day by each of the counsel for the accused.If one carefully peruses the confrontations made, it cannot be said to be so serious as to discredit her testimony in its entirety.Relevant excerpts are reproduced as below:Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 132 of 203"I had stated in my statement before CBI that on 31.10.1984 I came to know that Prime Minister Indira Gandhi has been assassinated by her security guard except some stray incidents everything was normal.Confronted with statement Ex. PW10/DA where it is not so recorded but it is recorded on 31.10.1984 Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister was assassinated.On that day no untoward incident took place in our area.I had stated before the CBI that on that day my father had come early to the house.Confronted with statement Ex.I had stated in my statement to the CBI that in the evening at about 6.30pm, Balwan Khokar who used to introduce himself as nephew of Sajjan Kumar alongwith his brother Krishan Khokar came to our house and asked my father to keep his brother Krishan Khokar as driver.My father told him that at present there is no vacancy and in case there will be any vacancy, he will inform him within 3-4 days.Confronted with Ex.PW10/DA where it is not so recorded.However it is recorded "in the evening at about 6.30 pm Balwan Khokar ( nephew of Sajjan Kumar ) came to our house for discussing employment for his nephew as driver". ....I had stated in my statement before the CBI that my father asked Balwan Khokar that Sikhs are being attacked thereupon Balwan Khokar told him that Sajjan Kumar is his maternal uncle and he has assured him that there shall be no attacks in our colony.Confronted with statement Ex. PW10/DA where it is not so recorded.I had stated in my statement that on the Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 133 of 203 intervening night of 31.10.1984 and 01.11.1984 at about 2.30- 3am, Granthi of our gurudwara came to our house and informed my father that police personnels have come in the gurudwara because my father was President of gurudwara.My father and my mother accompanied him to gurudwara.Confronted with statement Ex. PW10/DA where it is not so recorded.However, it is recorded "on the intervening night of 31.10-1.11.1984 at about 4 am, on 01.11.1984 the granthi of gurudwara came to our home asking for tea and also told my father that there was a police man in the gurudwara.After that my parents went to the gurudwara for the morning prayer.Morning prayer start at 2:30am as gurudwara sahib opens at that time.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 133 of 203I had stated in my statement before CBI that we heard noise and of slogans at about 7.30/8 am, we rushed and saw that a huge mob was coming which was being led by Balwan Khokar, Mahender Yadav and owner of Mamta Bakery, they were with sariyas, rods, subals, jellies and etc. Time I have given by approximation.Confronted with statement Ex. PW10/DA, where it is not so recorded but it is recorded "at about 8.30am, a mob led by Balwan Khokar, Mahender Yadav and owner of Mamta Bakery (whose name I do not remember attacked gurudwara".I had stated before CBI that Balwan Khokar, Mahender Yadav and Kishan Khokar came where all the Sikhs had gathered and they offered to pay compensation for the loss/damages.However it is recorded "seeing that mob could not defeat Sikhs, Balwan Khokar, Kishan Lal, Mahender Yadav, owner of Mamta bakery came near our house saying why we brothers should fight amongst each other and lets compromise and settle the issue.I had stated before the CBI that my father went with Balwan Khokar and Mahender Yadav on scooter.On hearing this, I. rushed in the same direction where my father had gone I saw that the scooter stopped near the shop of Dhanraj.I had stated in my statement before CBI that from his name plate I could gather that his name was Inspector Kaushik.Inspector Kaushik gave match box which was taken by Kishan Khokar and Kishan Khokar set on fire my father.Confronted with statement Ex. PW10/DA where it is not so recorded.However it is recorded that then it was Kaushik who gave them match box and the mob poured kerosene on my father and set him on fire.I had stated in my statement that mob had gone a little ahead my father jumped in a nearby nala when the mob saw that my father is alive they returned back.My father who had sustained burn on chest managed to jump in a nearby nala however the mob returned and saw him alive".However it is recorded that "this time the mob hit my father with iron rod and poured kerosene and some white powder and set him on fire."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 135 of 203It is not possible for this Court, therefore, to agree with the criticism of the counsel for the accused that PW-10 is an untruthful and unreliable witness.The trial Court too considered PW-10 to be a truthful witness who provided support and corroboration to PW-7 as far as the attack on the Gurudwara and the killing of her father Nirmal Singh is concerned.She broadly corroborates the testimony of the other PWs discussed hereinbefore.These prosecution witnesses were themselves were sufficient to prove Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 136 of 203 the guilt of the accused.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 136 of 203Analysis of the defence witnessesAt this stage, the Court would also like to discuss the evidence of the defence witnesses.266. DW-1 was posted as Garrison Engineer (East) in Delhi Cantonment.Om Prakash (not examined) came to his residence at around 7 am on 2nd November 1984 and asked for help for the family of Kehar Singh, the friend of Om Prakash whom DW-1 knew from before.DW-1 then accompanied Om Prakash to Raj Nagar with a unit truck.Om Prakash fetched PW-1 and her four children - three daughters and a son.PW-1 requested DW-1 that they should be evacuated to a safer place.She also asked that her bhabhi and their children also be rescued.Om Prakash then went and brought two ladies and two children with them.DW-1 then brought all of them to the Parade Camp at the Parade Ground, Delhi Cantonment.According to DW-1, he brought them there at 8 am and they all stayed there till 11:30 am.This is where he departed from the case of the prosecution and helped the accused.In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not inform anyone that he had rescued PW-1 and others.He states that he did not notice that the house adjoining Ram Avtar was in a burnt condition.DW-1 denied the suggestion that Malhi & Co., in which PW-6 was a Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 137 of 203 partner, were working for him.At the same time, he admitted having written a letter dated 11th April 1995 (Ex.DW-1/P-1), which falsified this claim.He then tamely suggested that "Raghuvinder Singh might have obtained the contract and this letter may have been written pursuant thereto".However, with Raghuvinder Singh having been killed on 2nd November 1984, the question of his obtaining a contract at a date thereafter simply did not arise.The sudden appearance of DW-1 after 27 years, not mentioning these facts to anyone makes his testimony certainly suspicious.Mr. Cheema would argue that if the evidence of DW-1 is read carefully, it supports PW-1 on the broad particulars of her rescue along with her children.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 137 of 203DW-2 point blank denied having given shelter to any Sikh family in her house.She too was obviously won over, despite her having helped the Sikhs in the moment of crisis.She goes to the extent of stating that she did not even know the house where Narender Pal Singh, Raghuvinder Singh, and PW-6 were residing with their families.This denial of knowledge about her neighbours makes her again a wholly unreliable witness.PW-15, the IO, mentioned how DWs 1 and 2 had given evasive replies and failed to cooperate with the investigation.DW-9 was posted at PP Palam Colony during the relevant time.His Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 138 of 203 statement that no crowd collected outside the PP in the morning of 2nd November 1984 seems palpably false given the mayhem and commotion in the area.He later sought to dilute his stand by suggesting that A-1 had not come to the PP on that day in his presence.In his cross- examination, his pathetic assertion that, in his presence, no untoward incident took place and that he did not notice any burnt houses, dead bodies, or ransacked houses exposes his brazen attempts in supporting the defence.He then states that "since riots were going on, therefore, there was a mob.I apprised the chowki in-charge about the same but no report was lodged separately by me regarding this fact".This actually points to the extent of police connivance with the rioters.He brazenly asserted that during the period of his duties from 31st October 1984 till 6th November 1984, "it never came to my notice that any Sikh person in the locality has been killed or their house looted and ransacked".This single sentence is enough to expose the utter falsehood of his testimony which deserves to be jettisoned in toto.S. A. Prasad (DW-11) was examined by the defence to prove that on the relevant dates, there was no electricity in the area.One Mukesh Sharma, MLA had, through an RTI, obtained information (Ex.DW-11/A).However, this witness was unable to confirm this fact.He in fact was shown the electricity bill mentioning a Raj Nagar address (Mark-X).He, however, was unable to produce the record.Subhash Chand (DW-12) was a registration clerk.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 139 of 203PW-17 confirmed that as many as 23 complaints were clubbed in the said FIR and only five murders were investigated.Five separate lists of witnesses were filed by way of five charge sheets.Later, a supplementary charge-sheet was also filed.Resultantly, as many as 25 murders were not prosecuted at all.Mr. Cheema pointed out how PW-9 who had lost her husband and in- laws and had filed a complaint (Ex.PW-9/A) was responded to with silence and no action was taken on her complaint.Likewise, one Kuldeep Singh had named HC Satbir Singh as an accused.Again, no action was taken and the murder was not investigated.It may be recalled that even as per the Justice Nanavati Commission, as many as 341 Sikhs were killed within the jurisdiction of Delhi Cantonment.As regards the clubbing of all these complaints into one FIR, none of the records would show that any specific order was passed directing such clubbing.All six cases in which separate charge sheets were filed ended in acquittals.It was only after an Crl.On 22nd November 2005, the Riot Cell filed a cancellation report before the MM.Therefore, before the CBI could even embark on a meaningful investigation, the Riot Cell tried to bury the case.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 140 of 203Turning to Ex.However, when DW-15 appeared before the Committee on 27th December 1991, he denied all other allegations except naming A-2, Mangat Ram, Raju, and Hukum Chand.Then we have the police officers of the Riot Cell who were also examined.To begin with, DW-4 was produced to prove the statement supposedly made earlier by PW-10 (Ex.PW-4/A).From the side of the prosecution, they challenged the said statement.DW-4 did not even know where PW-10 was residing on 1st March 1985, or even earlier.DW-4 was extensively examined and cross-examined.The CBI summarises the following aspects of DW-4's testimony which point to the failure of the investigation:"(i) He did not remember whether he investigated FIR no.416/84 for a single day.He however admitted that the file remained with him till the final compliance.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 141 of 203(ii) He did not know whose killings were the subject matter of the instant case.He did not remember if he ever investigated the killings of the five deceased of this case.He refused to see the case diary.(iii) He did not remember whether PW 15 recorded his statement in the course of the investigation by the CBI.He did not remember if he was ever called for enquiry at any stage.He did not remember the number of murders which were the subject matter of FIR 416/84, Later he recalled that there were 3-4 killings.On further cross examination he stated that he did not remember if there were 23 complaints involving the killings of 30 persons.(iv) He did not remember if a composite report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared by the SHO, to which he annexed five lists of witnesses.He refused to see the case diary on the point.He stated that it was possible that in 4 out of 5 challans, he might have been cited as a witness.He did not recall in how many cases he appeared as a witness.(v) He refused to say anything on the question that in three out of the five murders, sent for prosecution, the eyewitnesses were not even served and the cases ended in acquittal.Despite an affidavit being a part of the case diary, he could not state whether Narender Pal Singh and others ever contacted him.Thus, it was Crl.His expectation was to pursue PW-1 with some ulterior motive of a damage control exercise to nullify the contents of her affidavit.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 142 of 203PW-1 was justified in not joining such an investigation.Finding on A-1s involvement in criminal conspiracy(iv) Ironically there was a report alleging that Sikhs had unleashed violence against each other, who have collected in the house bearing number.4000 (Ex. PW16/E-5).As per the allegations he was openly abetting the riot but was arrested under security proceedings only.His arrest itself shall be a pointer to the ugly face of the scheme of things.(vi) Every day the roznamcha was closed with a specific report that no untoward incident had been reported or occurred."Three out of the five trials involving allegations of murder were never investigated.The witnesses who might have seen the murders were not questioned.The Justice Nanavati Commission itself had this to say:"The attacks were made in a systematic manner and without much fear of the police; almost suggesting that they were assured that they would not be harmed while committing those acts and thereafter. .................... There was a common pattern which followed by the big mobs which had played havoc in certain areas.The shops were identified, looted and then burnt.Thus what had initially started, as an angry outburst became an organized carnage........... There is also evidence to show that in systematic manner the Sikhs who were found to have collected either at Gurdwara or at some place in their localities for collectively defending themselves were either persuaded or forced to go inside of their houses.................... The systematic manner in which the Sikhs were thus killed indicate that the attacks on them were organized.311. A-3, meanwhile, was charge sheeted in two cases.He pointed out that neither the Justice Nanavati Commission nor the Government of India recommended further investigation to be carried out against A-3 and A-6 with respect to the incident of Nirmal Singhs murder.According to him, even the application moved by the CBI on 2nd December 2005 for further investigation before the Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi was qua the incidents relating to the complaints of Jasbir Singh and Jagdish Kaur wherein the charge sheets against A-1 and A-2 were not filed.The participation of A-3 and A-6 in those incidents has Crl.They have been acquitted of the remaining charges.Even here, although Sampuran Kaur was initially cited as a witness, she was subsequently dropped.No appeal was filed against the said order.The challenge against this order is pending before the Supreme Court.The evidence of DW-4 has already been discussed.No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details.Perhaps Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 177 of 203 an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant.But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny."Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 177 of 203Keeping this in view, if one would examine the evidence of PW-1, it is seen that she has named A-4 in her affidavit filed before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission and has also referred to his being part of the rioting mob in her affidavit filed before the Justice Nanavati Commission.In her deposition in Court, in connection with the killing of Narender Pal Singh, she deposed thus:"At about 7.30am.Again said I was not having a watch, it may be 6:30-7am, when one of my brother Narender Pal, jumped into the street adjoining my house.Soon thereafter, Raghuvinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh followed him.When Narender Pal jumped down, Dharamvir noticed him and shouted that the Thekedars running away and called upon others to come.The house of Girdhari Lal was close by.He came running armed with lathi (dang); Baldan Singh Retd.Subedar also rushed; Retd.Captain Bhagmal also came alongwith mob that gathered there.My brother Narender Pal was caused some lathi injuries and burnt close to my house.I also saw my two other brothers Raghuvinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh, being attacked and taken away by the mob to some distance.I closed the door and did not see thereafter as I was concerned about our own safety."A common counsel appeared for A-3, A-4, and A-5 in the trial Court and the cross-examination of PW-1 by him did not bring about any serious Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 178 of 203 contradictions as regards her naming A-4 and the acts attributed by her to him.I had signed my statement which was recorded before Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry.Whatever questions were asked by the Commission, I used to reply the same.The fact of the matter is that many of these witnesses were living in fear and had completely lost confidence in the Delhi Police and were therefore, unsure about coming forward to speak the truth.They could gather confidence only after the CBI took over the investigation.Turning now to the testimony of PW-7, he definitely names A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-6 as being part of the mob which came to attack the Raj Nagar Gurudwara.He stated as under:"On 01.11.1984 at about 7.30 am I along with my wife came out of gurudwara and saw that a huge mob was coming from Mehrauli road side.We saw that mob had burnt the gurudwara, looted the house of Jasbir Singh and burnt the truck of Harbans Singh.The mob again came which was led by Balwan Khokar, Kishan Khokar, Mahender Yadav.Mahender Yadav and Balwan Khokar were on scooter while Kishan Khokar was on foot.Balwan Khokhar and Mahender Yadav caught hold of hand of Sardar Nirmal Singh who was standing near gurudwara.They told him that they want to talk to him and want to make some settlement and he should accompany them.They took him with them thereafter we went to our house.Prior to that when we had gone along with our sword to gurudwara in order resist police officials came and took the swords with them the police had come after about two hours.Again said the police had come after two hours of our reaching to gurudwara and the mob came after one hour.Then, I remained at my house.There was huge noise outside the house "mar do mar do" and there was smoke Crl.He was able to correctly identify A-4 in the Court.He was extensively cross-examined by the counsel for A-3, A-4, and A-5, but on the crucial aspect of his actually having seen A-4 as part of the mob, he was not confronted with any inconsistent statement made by him earlier to the CBI.In his cross-examination, the confrontations read as under:"I had stated in my statement before the Magistrate that on 01.11.1984 at about 7.30am alongwith my wife came out of gurudwara and saw that a huge mob was coming from Mehrauli road side.I could identify Balwan Khokhar, Krishan Khokhar, Mahender Yadav, Captain Bhagmal, Raja Ram and Gulati from amongst the mob.Confronted with statement Ex.However, it is recorded that "I alongwith my wife Harjeet Kaur were coming towards our house on 01.11.1984 at about 7.30am from Gurudwara and saw that a mob was coming from opposite side armed with sariya, lathies and jellies".I had stated in my statement before the Magistrate that mob comprised of the people from the nearby villages and, colonies, some persons of my colony were also there and thereafter we went to our house after some time some Sikhs shouted that Gurudwara has been attacked and it should be saved.However, it is been recorded that he and his wife had gone to their house after some time.I might have forgotten to state this fact before the Magistrate.I had stated before the Magistrate that the mob again came which was led by Balwan Khokhar, Krishan Khokhar and Mahender Yadav.Mahender Yadav and Balwan Khokhar were on scooter while Krishan Khokhar was on foot.I had stated in my statement to the Magistrate that the police had come after two hours of our reaching to Gurudwara and the mob came after one hour then I remained at my house.The further confrontations read as under:I had also stated in my statement to the CBI that the mob again came which was led by Balwan Khokhar, Krishan Khokhar, Mahender Yadav.Mahender Yadav and Balwan Khokhar were on scooter and while Krishan Khokhar was on foot.Confronted with statement Ex.I had stated in my statement before the CBI that Balwan Khokhar and Mahender Yadav caught hold of hand of Sardar Nirmal Singh who was standing near the Gurudwara they told him that they want to talk to him and want to make certain settlement and he should accompany him.They took him with them thereafter we went to our house.As noticed above, the incidents took place in 1971 and the witnesses deposed before the tribunal in 2012 after about 41 years.The witnesses who saw the incidents dared to depose for fear of reprisal and due to such delay most of the material evidence have been destroyed by reason of death of some vital witnesses and the change of political atmosphere in the intervening period.Under such circumstances, the prosecution has collected best evidence available to prove the charges.The defence has not at all denied any of the incidents.It has merely denied the appellants complicity.The tribunal had to weigh the facts and circumstances, the materials placed before it and believed the version given by the prosecution as reliable.It should not be ignored that although huge number of persons were brutally killed and some girls were raped, the prosecution witnesses pointed fingers at one person, the appellant who, with his Behari cohorts perpetrated the incidents.If the prosecution was launched for political victimization, as suggested, it could have implicated other leaders of Jamat-e-Islami in the said incidents. ....On behalf of the defence it was submitted that in her book Shahid Kabi Meherunnessa ext-B, she did not state that Abdul Quader Molla killed them, rather she stated that the Non-Bangalees suddenly attacked Mehers house and killed her brothers, mother and Meher.She was confronted with this statement in course of cross-examination.She denied the suggestion.Crl.A. 1099/2013 & Connected Matters Page 201 of 203As far as A-2 to A-6 are concerned, in addition to the sentences awarded to each of them for the offences for which they were found guilty by the trial Court, this Court sentences each of them as under:(i) For the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B read with
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
148,018,182
During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died.The wife of the appellant/2nd accused in Special Case No.13/2011 filed an application in M.P.1/2014 in Crl.76 of 2012 to grant leave to continue the appeal.The earliest enquiry with regard to Ex.P.24 was not placed before the Court either by P.W.26 or by the Investigation Officer.The Investigation Officers namely P.Ws.30 and 31 suppressed the known sources of income and assets of the appellant and other accused.The Investigating Officer has simply examined some of the witnesses and calculated the income and explained without any guidelines.During the tenure of the appellant as Commissioner of Police, Salem City and Inspector General of Police, Salem Zone, from the year 1997 to 2001, he was reportedly indulged in corrupt practices and other illegal activities and acquired properties both movables and immovables disproportionate of his income and hence, the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Unit, Dharmapuri registered a case in Cr.After the investigation, charge-sheet was filed stating that the appellant, during the check period i.e from 01.01.1998 to 30.06.2001 washttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 said to be in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.33,58,490/- in his name and in the name of his wife Smt.Leela/2nd accused, V.J.Kumaresan, his son/3rd accused, Smt.Rama, his daughter/4th accused and Thiru.Guptalingam, his son-in-law/5th accused.After becoming the Superintendent of Police, then only the appellant's post was upgraded and included in the All India Services.The assets were acquired by the family members either by inheritance or from out of their own funds.The appellant's wife Mrs.Leela purchased a property in Sy.After the investigation and also finding that the appellant indulged in acquisition of assets and liabilities disproportionate to his income, as per schedule I to VI, as mentioned herein below, Statement-I Assets that stood to the credit of the Accused Officer and his dependent at the beginning of the Check period as on 01.01.1998 Sl.Assets Value Witnesses to Document No. speakhouse having D.No.5-1-38 South Street, Batlakundu with an extent of 2284 Sq.ft. by AO.Recorded vide D.Dis.Acquired by inheritance 4.33 acres - W-20, 23 & 37 D-21 & 23 of land in Batlakundu S.No.791 & 792 by family agreement deed dated 01.01.1996 by AO.Recorded vide D.Dis.12476/GB-I/4/96, dated 09.05.1996 of DGP, Chennai.Purchased lands measuring 26.56 - W-20, 16, 17, D2 & 23 acres in S.No.116, 140/1, 140/3 18 & 19 and 138/1 of Viralipatti Village vide Doc.No.1642/95, dated 30.08.1995 on the name of AO's wife Tmt.Out of which 49 ¾ sovereigns of gold jewels were gifted to AO's daughter Tmt.AO purchased an Ambassador Car 76,630.00 W-20 & 37 D-26 bearing Registration No.TNT 1771 on 03.08.1979 for Rs.15,000/-.Purchase was recorded vide L.Dis.The cost of the engine was Rs.The above purchase was recorded in GO.RT.No.2592 Home (Police-AO purchased a Symphony air - W-20 D-64 cooler on 16.04.1990 for Rs.AO purchased a National - W-20 & 37 D-29 & 64 Panasonic Tape recorded vide K.Dis.No.177515/GBI/81 of DGP, Chennai.AO purchased Silk Sarees and - W-20 D-64 clothings etc worth Rs.10,000/-AO purchased Yamaha Motor - W-20 & 38 D-30 & 64 Cycle bearing registration No.TN-59-D8178 on the name of his son Tr.V.J.Kumaravel for Rs.AO purchased a Leonard - W-20 D-31 & 64 Refrigerator with voltage stabilizer and stand during 1982 for Rs.Recorded vide K.Dis.Vikas Patram 4 Nos. each Rs.each for Rs.1000/- and 2 NSC certificates each for Rs.10,000/- on 10.02.1993 at HPO, Villupuram.6NS/12CC 351809 to 6NS/12CC 351811 and 6NS/12FF430083, 430084AO purchased 2 NSC for each Rs. 25,000-00 W-20 D47 & 64 10,000/- and one NSC for Rs.Recorded in GO(2D)No.161, Home(Pol.The AO was having a balance of 12,995-00 W-20 & 49 D47 & 64 Rs.12,995/- as on 01.01.1998 at SBI, Salem under Saving Bank A/c No.32750A sum of Rs.2,30,966.80 stood in 2,30,966.80 W-20, 47 & 49 D-72 & D79 the name of Tmt.J.Leela with SBI, Salem in PPF A/c No.19/2026 as on 01.01.1998 Total Rs. 8,17,805-80 Statement-II Assets that stood to the credit of the Accused Officer and his dependent at the end of the Check period as on 30.06.2001 Sl.Assets Value Witnesses to Document No. speakhouse having D.No.5-1-38 South 37house having D.No.5-1-38 South 37Street, Batlakundu with an extent of 2284 Sq.ft. by AO.Recorded vide D.Dis.No.12476/GB-I/4/96, dated 09.05.96 of DGP, Chennai.Acquired by inheritance 4.33 acres - W-20, 23 & D-21 & 23 of land in Batlakundu S.No.791 & 37 792 by family agreement deed dated 01.01.1996 by AO.of land in Batlakundu S.No.791 & 37Recorded vide D.Dis.12476/GB-I/4/96, dated 09.05.1996 of DGP, Chennai.Purchased lands measuring 25.56 - W-20, 16, D2 & 23 acres in S.No.116, 140/1, 140/3 17, 18 & 19 and 138/1 of Viralipatti Village vide Doc.No.1642/95, dated 30.08.1995 on the name of AO's wife Tmt.AO purchased 1980 Sq.ft.of 89,539-00 W-20 & 42 D35 & 64 house plot No.13 in MMJ Nagar, Survey No.156/8B & 8C on 04.05.2001 in the name of his wife Tmt.J.Leela, vide Doc.1703/2001, dated 04.05.2001 Land cost = 79,200-00 Stamp Paper = 5,600-00 Cash collected = 3,904-00 Regn.= 835-0089,539-00Gold jewels weighing 110 ¼ 90,000-00 W-20 D-64 sovereigns.The house was evaluated by the Executive Engineer, PWD (building maintenance) Madurai and furnished the value Rs.The above purchase was recorded in GO.RT.No.2592 Home (Police-AO purchased a Symphony air - W-20 D-64 cooler on 16.04.1990 for Rs.AO purchased a National - W-20 & 37 D-29 & 64 Panasonic Tape recorder for Rs.Recorded Vide K.Dis.No.177515/GBI/81 of DGP, Chennai.AO purchased Silk sarees and - W-20 D-64 clothings etc worth Rs.10,000/-.Cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-59-Refrigerator with voltage stabilizer and stand during 1982 for Rs.Recorded vide K.Dis.AO commenced a fixed deposit 3,664-00 W-20 & 59 D-64 & 76 account on the name of his wife vide A/c No.29/01 and certificate No.609788 on 24.04.2001 at Karnataka bank, Madurai.AO deposited Rs.9,51,640-00 9,51,640-00 W-20 & 59 D-64 & 39 under fixed deposit scheme on the name of his wife vide A/c No. 28/2001 and Certificate No. 609787 on 23.04.2001 in Karnataka Bank at Madurai.AO purchased a motorized 35,000-00 W-20 D-64 Treadmill CP 3712 on 21.12.1998 for Rs.35,000/- from M/s.Shagun Health Products (P) Ltd. 20 Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai-Recorded vide G.O.2(D) No.38, Home (Pol.The balance amount as on 30.06.2001 Total Rs. 43,93,303-00 Statement-III Income of the Accused Officer and his dependent during the Check period between 01.01.1998 and 30.06.2001 Sl.Particulars Amount Witnesses to Document No. received be speakPay and allowance received for the 25,719-00 W-70 D-44 month of June, 2001 by AO from Human Rights Commission, Chennai.House rent received for the house 37,800-00 W-20 & 85 at 5-1-38 of Batlagundu for the period from 01.01.1997 to 30.06.2001.(Rs.900/- per month) by the AO.Agriculture income derived from 2,95,260-00 W-20 & 81 D-45 4.33 acres of lands in S.No.791, 792 of Batlagundu Village by the AO furnished by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, NilakottaiAO received maturity value of 45,000-00 W-44 D-64 Kissan Vikas Patra in No.00CC 335917, 335918, 335919 andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 335920 on 23.08.1998 for Rs.45,000/- at HPO, Villupuram.AO received maturity value of 23,045-00 W-44 D-64 NSC certificates bearing Regn.430083, 430084, 351809 to 351811 on 10.02.1999 from HPO, Villupuram for Rs.23,045/-AO received maturity value of 25,375-00 W-45 D-33 NSC certificates No.0201167 & 0201168 and 232333 on 10.03.2000 from HPO, Palani for Rs.25,375/-.Recorded vide G.O.2(D) 161 Home (Pol.Income through maturity value of 27,095-20 W-20 & 49 D-49 PPF Account No.19/2026 stood on the name of Tmt.J.Leela on 09.04.1998 from SBI, Salem for Rs.27,095.20A sum of Rs.4,04,214/- was 1,89,387-00 W-20 & 46 D-67 & 68 deposited by AO on the name of his wife and son on 16.09.1997 vide receipt No.SD A/10 772704,The deposits matured on 14.12.2000 and maturity amount of Rs.5,93,601/- was received by the AO.Housing loan received from 10,00,000-00 W-23 & 59 D-52 Karnataka Bank on the name of Tr.Income earned through interest for 17,604-70 W-49 D-47 & 54 the SB Account No.32750 in the name of AO with SBI, Salem Rs.17,604-70Interest on Term Deposit in A/c 5,460-00 W-49 D-47 & 54 No.47062 in Karnataka Bank Divya Towrs, Salem Total 26,39,251-90http://www.judis.nic.in 27 Statement-IV Expenditure of the Accused Officer and his dependent during the Check Period between 01.01.1998 and 30.06.2001 Sl.Particulars Amount paid Witnesses.P.3).P.W.2: Tamilarasan He was working as an Assistant in the District Registrar Office, Dindigul.P.W.3: Shanmugam He was working as a Assistant Revenue Officer, Madurai Corporation.P.W.4:Sampathkumar He was then private school correspondent.P.W.5: Mr.John Xavier, Advocate He speaks about the selling of his plot to A2 at Madurai.P.W.6: Krishnasamy He was working as an Executive Engineer, PWD, Building Maintenance, Madurai.P.W.7: Ragunathan He was working as a Assistant Treasury Officer,http://www.judis.nic.in Salem.P.W.8: Bharathidasan He was working as a Village Administrative Officer.P.W.9: Thangadurai He was working as an Assistant Engineer in Agricultural Engineering Department, Dindigul.He speaks about the Government subsidy in respect of Drip irrigation to the land of A2 at Viralipatti Village, Dindigul District.P.W.10: Periyasamy He was working as a Chief Town Planning Officer.P.W.11: Prasad He was working as an Accounts Manager, State Bank of India, Salem.He speaks about old PPF Accounts.P.W.12: Prabakaran He was working as an Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.P.W.13: Vivekanandan He was working in the Investigation Wing of Madurai Corporation.P.W.14: Sankaranarayanan He was working as Revenue Inspector, Batlagundu,http://www.judis.nic.in Dindigul District.P.W.15: Kandeepan He was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Batlagundu.He speaks about service connections in the name of A2 in respect of Viralipatti lands.P.W.16: Sankaran He was working as Sub Registrar, Chittampatti, Madurai.He speaks about the sale of Plot and its Registration in the name of A2 at Madurai.P.W.17: Kasthuri Bai She was working as an Account Supervisor, E.B. Office, Thiruppalai, Madurai.P.W.18: Bhoopathy He was working as a Horticulture Officer, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.P.W.19: Pappakrishnan He was working as an Agricultural Officer, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.P.W.20: Shanmugam He was working as Sub Post Master, Alagpuram Post Office, Salem.He speaks about the purchase of Nationalhttp://www.judis.nic.in Savings Certificates.P.W.21: Meenakshisundaram He was working as Secretary of Batlagundu Town Panchayat.P.W.22: Ramachandran He was working as a Chief Reporter, Kalaikathir, Salem.He speaks about his petition dated 29.06.2001 given to Thiru.Naresh Gupta I.A.S. then Home Secretary, Tamil Nadu.P.W.23: Rayan He was working as Special Tahsildar, Kodaikkanal.He speaks about his counter signed in Ex.P.W.24: Selvam He was working as private Bore Well Agent.He speaks about Bore Well particulars in the land of A2 at Viralipatti.P.W.25: Mrs.P.W.26: Thiru.P.W.28: Vairappan He was Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Highways Department.P.W.29: Viswanathan He was working as a Statistical Inspector, Chennai.P.W.30: Periyasamy He was working as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, V & AC Unit, Dharmapuri.************* Originally, the appellant in this appeal was arrayed as first accused in Special Case No.13/2011 on the file of the Special Court for Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cases, Madurai District.This Court, by order dated 26.11.2014, permitted her and directed to continue the appeal.2.The case of the appellant is that the respondent Police registered a case in Cr.The respondent Police, after investigation, laid a charge-sheet against the appellant/A-1 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(i)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and against the accused Nos.2 to 5, charges were abated.The Special Court, after the trial, found the appellant guilty and convicted him for the offences under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(i)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo a rigourous imprisonment of 3 years and also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and acquitted the otherhttp://www.judis.nic.in accused from the charges framed against them.Challenging the said 3 conviction and sentence, the first accused alone filed this appeal.During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died.The evidence adduced by the prosecution has not satisfactorily proved the charges levelled against the appellant.The agricultural income and the rental income from the year 1965 to the beginning of the check period of the appellant was Rs.51,50,200/-.The documents placed by the appellant to disprove the case of the prosecution was not at all appreciated by the Special Court in this case and also the documents of the defence has not been considered and appreciatedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 by the trial Judge and the trial Judge has simply accepted the case of the prosecution and found the other accused not guilty in this case and acquitted them and the appellant was wrongly convicted.The first accused was charged under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accused Nos.2 to 5 were charged under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 109 I.P.C for having abetted the appellant.The learned Special Judge, after completing the formalities, framed the charges against the appellant under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(i)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and against the accused 2 to 5 under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(i)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 109 of I.P.C.4.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the respondent/prosecution, 31 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 31 and 67 documents were marked as Exs.5.After examining the prosecution witnesses, when the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances appear against them, they denied the same as false.On the side of the appellant, no oral evidence was let in and only 15 documents were exhibited as Exs.6.The Special Judge, after completing the trial, after hearing the arguments of both sides, convicted the appellant under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(i)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and acquitted him from other charges.Hence, the appellant is before this Court.However, the second accused, his wife wanted to continue the appeal.P.W.31- Deputy Superintendent of Police has very clearly deposed in his cross- examination that the accused was holding only one house and a land to the extent of 4 acres 33 cents which are shown in the charge-sheet.In the explanation-Ex.State of Punjab and another (SC) reported in (2011) 6 SCR 895 in para No.15, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as “But the most important and vital check before a public servant can be booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the ingredients of the offence will have to be deduced from the facts and circumstances obtained in the particular case”.8.Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that in the G.O.(D).No.376, dated 30.04.1996, which was recorded in page No.88 of the explanation-Ex.He would further submit that even without conducting a preliminary enquiry also not producing a copy of the preliminary report to the appellant, they have registered the case and.It is also violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cases.P.W.31, without examining any other witnesses and without perusing the statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C by his predecessors, has deposed before the Court and chosen to send the statements of P.Ws.1 to 6 to the appellant on 02.09.2003 alonghttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 with the letter of final opportunity for his explanation.Stating that explanation given by the appellant did not satisfy him, P.W.31, filed the charge-sheet against the appellant and other family members on 28.02.2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.The witness P.W.30, knowing fully well that the occurrence took place in Salem as indicated in printed F.I.R/Ex.P.26, obtained warrant from the Chief Judicial Magistrate at the jurisdictional point.But without any authenticated search warrant, they have not only searched the premises of the appellant but also the houses of the son and daughter of the appellant.The second accused/wife of the accused has got an independent source.Therefore, her assets cannot be clubbed with the appellant's assets and like that A-3/son of the appellant and A-4-daughter of the appellant have got independent source of income for purchasing properties.Like that, A-5, appellant's son-in-law, who is the husband of A-4 and was working as a scheduled contractor, has got independent source to purchase the property and for constructing the houses.The Investigating Officer has failed to consider all these facts and also the explanation given by the appellant and he clubbed all the properties and wrongly stated that accused Nos.2 to 5 are not having any independent source and the appellant alone has purchased the property in the name of his wife and their children and son-in-law and constructed houses.He would further submit that, without any evidence andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 no legal propositions, under these circumstances, the trial court has failed to consider the legal and factual positions.Though they rightly acquitted the other accused, wrongly convicted the appellant alone.iv)Lalita Kumari Vs.Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in [(2014) 1 SCC (Crl) 524]v)State of Maharashtra Vs Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla reported in [1988 SCC (Cri) 91]vi)State of Maharashtra Vs.viii)Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1977 SCC 796ix)State by Lokayuktha Police Vs.H.Srinivas, decided, in Crl Appeal Nos.775-779/2018, on 18.05.2018http://www.judis.nic.in 11x)Siddappa M.Poojari Vs State of Karnataka, decided, in Crl Appeal 388/2011, on 21.03.2017xi)State Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam Vs Surya Sankaram Kurri, reported in [2006 (3) Crimes 316 (SC)]xii)P.Nallammal and another Vs.Nos.116, 140/1, 140/3 and 138/1 to the extent of 26 acres and 56 cents at Viralipatti Village, Nilakkottai Taluk in Dindingul District on 04.05.2001 for the value of Rs.89,539/-.However, the wife of the appellant is house wife since from the date of their marriage and she has no independent source of income.Hence, the plea of purchasing the properties to the tune of about Rs.2 lakhs is baseless.Further, on the date of purchase of the properties, either of the family members have any independent income/neither she acquired by inheritance nor own source of income to acquire the properties in their name.The appellant's salary was Rs.http://www.judis.nic.in 12 1,65,825/- per annum.Since the appellant did not have any inheritance nor independent source of income, the exemption of sub-rule (3) and (4) of All India Service Rules and Section 13(i)(3) of P.C Act are not applicable.Further, he would submit that the intention of the appellant is to legalize the disproportionate income of purchasing 26.56 acres and for that he sent information to the higher authority and the same was recorded and ordered in G.O.Ms.It shows manifestly the intention of the appellant to legalize the purchase of property by his wife, though she has purchased the property either by inheritance or own source of income.Hence, it is clear that the appellant had clandestinely acted to convert the sources of property by justification.Hence, accepting the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, the trial court has rightly rejected the explanation given by the appellant.10.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would further submit that the explanation offered by the appellant that the properties stand in the name of his daughter/4th accused and son-in-law/5th accused were acquired from their own funds either through agricultural or through contractual works or by themselves is not appropriate in this case, since the appellant's daughter/4th accused had not obtained any property either before or after her marriage and did not havehttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 any independent source of income as she was a house wife at the relevant point of time.Further, in order to elucidate the source of income of the 4 th accused, no oral or documentary evidence was let in.Hence, it is clear that the point for consideration raised by the appellant is unsustainable either in law or on facts.Though it is stated that the son-in-law, fifth accused is a Scheduled Contractor and doing work for nearly about 6 crores, he has not produced any account for the same.Admittedly, he is not an income tax assessee.11.Regarding the non-submission of the preliminary enquiry report to the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would further submit that after receiving the complaint from P.W.22-Mr.Ramachandran, P.W.26-Mr.Naresh Gupta, then Home Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, conducted a discreet preliminary enquiry to ascertain the prima facie case as to whether the case has to be proceeded after registration of F.I.R and after conducting a discreet preliminary enquiry, P.W.26 has forwarded the complaint to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai for necessary action.He is a high dignitary and he has no personal animosity against the appellant.The trial Court has also accepted the reason given by the prosecution that it is only a discreet preliminary enquiry to find out the prima facie case.Further, he would submit that the Hon'ble Apex Courthttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 has held in the case of Prakash Singh Badal Vs State of Punjab reported in (2007) 1 SCC Crimes that at the stage of registration of the crime or a case on the basis of the information non-disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandates of Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C, the concerned Police Officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuses to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible.On the other hand, the Officer in charge of the Police Station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence for which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157 thereof.Following the said guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in this case also, after receiving the complaint from P.W.22, P.W.26 conducted a discreet enquiry and since there was prima facie case, he forwarded the complaint to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai for consideration.The trial court also found that the second accused did not have any independent income to purchase the alleged property, since she was a house wife.13.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would further submit that the agricultural income mentioned by the appellant was an imaginary one.It can be seen by perusing the evidence of P.Ws.8, 18, 19 and 20 and the trial court also found that the income mentioned by the appellant seems to be a huge one.But the appellant has not proved the agricultural income either by way of producing any oral evidence or any documentary evidence.Therefore, it shows that the agricultural income was taken into consideration by the trial court.With regard to the purchase of car and expenses towards the maintenance of car, he would submit that it was not intimated to the Government of Tamil Nadu, as per the provisions enumerated in the rules.Hence, the purchase of car is not intimated for the actual purchase value and expenditure incurred for the maintenance of the car.Hence, it is clear thathttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 the value of the car and the maintenance charges towards the car was not properly explained before the Court and the appellant did not prove the value by producing proper documents and accounts.Further, he would submit that expenses made to the car was met by way of Travelling Allowance by the appellant and the car was not used for official purpose.Hence, the claim for travelling allowance, which has been used for the purpose of expenses, is not at all considerable one.This only shows that the claim made by the appellant is not a bonafide one.The prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt.Though the trial court has accepted the version of the prosecution and also the explanation offered by the defence, convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.Further, other accused persons were acquitted from the charges framed against them.Hence, the appellant was working in the superior rank, in order to escape from the clutches of law, this appeal has been filed.Since the appellant died during the pendency of this appeal, the charges against him are abated.However, the second accused continued this appeal.Therefore, the petition in Crl.Hence, a case was registered against him in Cr.During the investigation, the Investigating Officer examined 49http://www.judis.nic.in 18 witnesses and recorded their statements and collected 67 documents.No.12476/GB-I/4/96, dated 09.05.96 of DGP, Chennai.A sum of Rs.2,52,634/- was 2,52,634-00 W-20 & 46 D64 & 67 deposited under Special Term Deposit on the name of Tmt.Vide Certificate No.SD A/10 772705http://www.judis.nic.in 21A sum of Rs.1,51,580/- was 1,51,580-00 W-20 & 46 D64 & 67 deposited under Special Term Deposit on the name of Tmt.Vide Certificate No.SD A/10 772704Purchase of 30 sovereigns / 30 “ after the marriage of AO's / daughterhttp://www.judis.nic.in 23AO purchased a Ambassador Car 1,06,630-00 W-20 & 41 D24 & 64 bearing Registration No.TNT 1771 by AO on 03.08.1979 for Rs.The engine of the Car was replaced by a diesel engine which was purchased for Rs.The above engine was sold for Rs.Madurai from 10.01.2001 to Sep. 70 & 72 2001 on the name of his son-in-D8178 on the name of his son Tr.V.J.Kumaravel for Rs.37,343/-After receipt of the complaint, the houses of the appellant, his son, daughter were also searched and after obtaining a direction of the Court, certain documents were recovered.He has spoken about the character of the appellant and also the fact that while he was working as Superintendent of Police, he indulged in various corrupt practices.Hence, he sent a complaint against the appellant through the Home Secretary, Government of TamilNadu, Secretariat, Chennai.Subsequently, in order to ascertain the assets and liabilities, apart from the salary, source of income of the appellant and also the source of income of the family members, they examined the following prosecution witnesses:-http://www.judis.nic.in 32 “P.W.1: Venkatraman He was working as a chief administrative officer in D.G.P. Office, Chennai.He speaks about the family settlement held on 01.01.1996 in respect of order of then DGP dated 09.05.1996(Ex.He speaks about the investigation.P.W.31: Muthusamy He was working as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, V & AC Unit, Dharmapuri.He speaks about the filing of charge sheet/final report.” After considering all the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court accepted the case of the prosecution and rejected the case of the defence regarding the appellant and convicted him for the offences under Sectionor the offences under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(i)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo a rigourous imprisonment of 3 years and also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.However, acquitted other accused 2 to 5.http://www.judis.nic.in 3718.Admittedly, though the appellant has stated that he was having agricultural lands at the time of entering into service and also he had got income from the agricultural lands, no evidence has been produced to prove that he was having sufficient means from the agricultural lands.Admittedly, agricultural income is exempted from tax.Though the appellant is exempted from income tax, he has not shown any income from the agricultural source.Further, he has not specifically stated that on the date of entering into service, what is the extent of land he was having and what was the income he has derived for each and every year.In the absence of any proof, the contention raised by the appellant cannot be accepted.According to the prosecution, the property stands in the name of the wife of the appellant/2nd accused is only funded by the appellant.But the appellant has stated that she has got independent source.Admittedly, she is a house wife and she is also not an income tax assessee.He has not filed any proof to show that she has got independent source to purchase the property and even in the property stands in the name of his son and daughter, the appellant only invested the money and purchased the property and only in order to escape from the clutches of law he has stated like this.Though it is stated that the son-in-law, fifth accused is a Scheduled Contractor and doing work for nearly about Rs.6 crores, he has not produced any account for the same.Admittedly, he is not an income tax assessee.The prosecution has established that after receipt of the complaint from P.W.22 and after conducting discreet preliminary enquiry and after examining the prosecutionhttp://www.judis.nic.in 38 witnesses and recording their statements, they have found that the appellant had acquired properties disproportionate to his known sources of income and in order to substantiate the charges, they have examined 31 witnesses and marked 67 documents with 2 material objects.Once the prosecution has proved its case that the appellant has acquired disproportionate assets to his known source of income, it is for the appellant to rebut the same.But at the same time, since the appellant has got disproportionate assets under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, burden has been shifted on the appellant.When the prosecution has collected the materials and held that during the check period, the family members of the appellant purchased various properties and constructed the building, for which, they did not have any independent source, the defence neither they produced documentary evidence to show that they have independent sources nor come to the witness box and depose before the Court and satisfactorily rebut the presumption under the law.No doubt, the accused need not go into the witness box and establish their defence that they can very well rebut the presumption through preponderance of probabilities.But, in this case, the specific case of the prosecution is that when the appellant was working as the Commissioner of Police (in-charge), Salem City and the Inspector General of Police, Salem Zone, during the check period, he has repeatedly indulged in acquisition of assets bothhttp://www.judis.nic.in 39 movables and immovables disproportionate to his known sources of income in his name and also in his family members.According to the prosecution, either of his family members do not have any independent source to acquire the property.The only source is the appellant.Hence, it is for the appellant to rebut the presumption.On a careful reading of the evidence of Pws.8, 18, 19 and 20, it is clear that agricultural income has not been established by the defence.However, the Investigating Officer has properly calculated the probable income through the agricultural lands and included in his statement.But, even if it is not true, as stated by the prosecution, it is for the appellant to prove the same by way of oral and documentary evidence what was the income through the agricultural lands.Though the appellant is an income tax assessee, he has not filed his return what was his actual agricultural income.The Special Court for Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cases, Madurai, Madurai District2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 42 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
148,026,270
The undisputed factual background of this case as noted in the impugned order is as under: -"Complainant is running a clinic in the name of Dr. Mukesh Orthopedic and at U-86 C, Lampur Road, Opposite Government Hospital, Narela, Delhi.A lady namely Neerja Sharma got treatment from that hospital from 09.06.04 to 10-06-04 and 2007 for hip pain.She was treated for sometime by Mr.Pradeep, Physiotherapist.One day ACP Ram Chander and Neerja Sharma visited the said clinic.Petitioner is the complainant, whose application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. was allowed by learned trial court, at whose instance FIR under Sections 384/385/387/506/120-B of IPC was registered at P.S. Narela, Delhi.Charge-sheet was filed against accused-Neerja Sharma in the above-said FIR case and in the supplementary charge-sheet filed, the first four respondents herein were shown in column No.12 due to lack of evidence against them.The trial court did not accept the supplementary charge-sheet qua respondent-ACP (Retd.) Ram Chander and had summoned him as an accused.The protest petition of petitioner-M.C.4645/2013 Page 1 of 9complainant herein against Respondents No.2 to 4 herein was not accepted by trial court vide order of 3rd January, 2012 which was challenged by way of a revision petition by first respondent-ACP (Retd.) Ram Chander because he was summoned as an accused.Petitioner had also assailed aforesaid trial court's order refusing to summon respondents No.2 to 4 herein as accused in the FIR case.Learned revisional court vide impugned order of 3rd September, 2013 has rejected petitioner's revision petition against non-summoning of respondents No.2 to 4 herein and has accepted revision petition of ACP (Retd.) Ram Chander, who is first respondent in this petition.ACP Ram Chander asked the doctor whether he was paying any tax to Delhi Police or not as he had a very good practice.When he replied in negative, ACP said that same would be covered with the help of Neerja.At that time, Neerja Sharma informed ACP that complainant was owner of crores of rupees, that he was running one nursing home and was in the process of constructing another.They would threat that he would be implicated in a false case as he had raped Neerja Sharma Crl.M.C.4645/2013 Page 2 of 9 during treatment.They connived with an advocate namely Narender Malik and another person claiming himself to be encounter specialist of Delhi Crime Branch.Complainant paid them Rs.5 lacs in all due to threats and fear of reputation.Some days back, SI Vinod Gautam along with three other persons came to the nursing home, put him in a gypsy and took to a house in village Alipur.Those persons were in police uniform.Neerja Sharma was found present in that house.Doctor was beaten there and was made to write something on a piece of paper.He was left at last threatening if he made complaint to anybody, he and his family members would be eliminated.Thereafter the accused started blackmailing him and demanded Rs.5 lacs by extending threats that Mr. Ram Chander had become ACP of PS Narela by that time and so they would have no problem in implicating him in a false rape or other case.Further allegation is that Mr. Jitender, the then SHO PS Narela also had connived with them.It was vehemently argued by learned counsel for petitioner that learned revisional court in the impugned order has gone into the merits and has discarded petitioner's case qua first four respondents herein although there is sufficient material on record to prove that accused-Neerja Sharma had conspired with respondents No.1 to 4 herein to commit the offence in question.It was pointed out that Crl.M.C.4645/2013 Page 3 of 9 there is no basis to discard petitioner's version of first respondent and third respondent extending threats to petitioner of false implication and of extorting rupees five lacs from petitioner particularly when the statement of petitioner is corroborated by the statement of Sanjay, who is wardboy in petitioner's clinic.M.C.4645/2013 Page 3 of 9During the course of hearing, it was asserted by learned counsels for petitioner that fourth respondent herein had abducted petitioner from his clinic and had taken him to a house in Alipur wherein petitioner was tortured and was made to write an apology letter and the plea of alibi taken by fourth respondent herein was pre-planned and has been illegally accepted by learned revisional court.Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of petitioner that first and third respondent herein have committed various offences in connivance with accused-Neerja Sharma by adopting same modus operandi and accused-Neerja Sharma alongwith respondent No.3-ACP Roop Ram has been convicted in FIR No.480/05 under Section 306/385/120-B of IPC registered at P.S. Vasant Kunj, Delhi.Thus, quashing of trial court's order and the impugned order is sought in this petition with a prayer that petitioner's protest petition be accepted and first four respondents herein be tried as accused alongwith main accused-Neerja Sharma in this FIR case.On behalf of first four respondents, it was submitted by learned counsels that impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity and there has to be a proper application of mind at the stage of summoning an accused and that the supplementary charge-sheet gives cogent reasons for putting first four respondents herein in column No.12 in the supplementary charge-sheet.On behalf of respondents No.2 to 4, it was Crl.Since no worthwhile arguments were raised regarding lack of sanction for prosecution of first respondent Crl.M.C.4645/2013 Page 8 of 9 herein, therefore, this aspect is left open to be considered by the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of charge.M.C.4645/2013 Page 8 of 9M.C.4645/2013 Page 9 of 9M.C.4645/2013 Page 9 of 9
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
148,028,659
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail.The present applicants are in jail since 08.10.2019 in connection with Crime No.225/2013 registered at Police Station - Tirtla, District - Dhar for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the applicants has argued before this Court that the other co-accused persons have been acquitted in Sessions Trial No.125/2014 and the present applicants were implicated in the crime only on the basis of memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It has been stated that there was no recovery from the present applicants and one co-accused person - Ban Singh has also been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and his contention is that the present applicants were not arrested initially, and therefore, the trial was separated, however, he has not disputed the fact that the other co-accused persons have been acquitted in Sessions Trial No.125/2014 for the same offences punishable under Section 395 and 397 of the M.Cr.C. No.54165/2019 2 Indian Penal Code.He has also not disputed the order dated 12.02.2019 by which, one of the identically placed person has been granted bail, however, he has stated that there is one more case registered against the present applicants for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act.C. No.54165/2019 2The present applicants (Bahadur and Dinesh) are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the said Court on the dates fixed in this behalf.Certified copy, as per rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Ravi Digitally signed by Ravi Prakash Date: 2020.01.16 17:02:03 +05'30'
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
145,860,236
The petitioner herein are Agricultural land owners in the districts of Tiruppur, Coimbatore, Dharmapuri, Namakkal, Erode, Salem, Villupuramhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 District of Tamil Nadu.Alleging that they are affected by the erection of High Tension Transmission Towers and corridors of Power Transmission project carried by Power Grid Corporation of India/3rd respondent herein has filed this present Writ Petition, seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the paper publication made in daily English newspaper during the month of April and May 2016, with respect to the following Power Transmission Projects.a. Raigarh to Pugalur 800 KV HVDC Line.b. Pugalur to North Thrissur 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.c. Pugalur HVDC Station – Pugalur Existing 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.d. Pugalur HVDC Station – Arasur 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.e. Pugalur HVDC Station – Thiruvalam 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.f. Pugalur HVDC Station – Edayarpalayam 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.g. Edayarpalayam – Udumalapet 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.It is contended in the affidavit filed by the 11 petitioners herein, who claims to be land owners likely to be affected by the projects, that the Central Electricity Authority/2nd respondent herein, gave prior approval to the Power Grid Corporation of India/3rd respondent herein, for these following three schemes.1. Scheme # 1: Raigarh – Pugalur 6000 MW HVDC System2. Scheme # 2: AC System Strengthening at Pugalur andBecause of this yearly cultivation and Harvest & Income are stalled, in turn the future of the families of the farmers is left in the Dark.Diminution/Fall of land Value (Present & Future): The Farmers of the Districts through which the Tower lines pass, are facing continuous loss yearly, But they are continuing Agriculture only because of their dependency on the value of Lands they own.To meet their Requirements such as children's Education, Medical Expenses, Marriage Expenses, Essential Family Expenses, they use to sell a small portion of their land.But because of the above Projects, the Lands' both Present & Future Market Value plunge.Further, it is also contended in the affidavit that due to passing of extreme High Voltage Current through the overhead High Tension Transmission Lines, the Electrostatics field develops.It conduct throughhttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 human being, plants and animals causing serious health, affects on the life.No costs.Consequently, Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.http://www.judis.nic.in Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.Scheme # 3: Pugalur – Trichur 2000 MW VSC Based HVDC SystemThe said High Tension Transmission Projects is to erect the Towers and overhead lines through the specific route, which passes through the petitioners' land.While implementing the said project, the petitioners' apprehend that the following damages are likely to cause to them and their land.i. Fragmentation of Agricultural Lands: The lands to the acquired for this project mostly belongs to small farmers having merely 1 to 2 Acres of lands.The Route does not run along the sides of the Fields, rather it runs across the fields.No Borewell was allowed to be laid even for the purpose of irrigation.Hence raises the Question over the Future livelihood of the farmers, whose lands are to be acquired.Restriction of Cultivation: The Districts, though which the Tower lines passes, are already facing heavy shortage of Agricultural Labourers.So the farmers in the above said districts already migrated to the Cultivation of long Term Crops such as Coconut, Mango etc., which requires less Manpower.http://www.judis.nic.in But these projects restrict the farmers from 7 cultivating the above said crops.While so, the 3rd and 11th respondents have illegally entered upon their lands and had started erecting Towers and drawing High Tension Transmission Line corridors over the land.Since the licensees himself has called for objections which is contrary to the Principle of no one shall be a Judge in his Own Cause.The telephone lines and connections were thereafter given from time to time.Till the landlord-tenant dispute arose between the Appellant and M/S. Purolator India Ltd., no objection was raised by the Appellant.In fact, we have also called the officer concerned and perused the records.We also permitted the learned counsel for the appellants to do so.It is the appellants who approached the first respondent and for the reasons known, they did not appear for hearing.They have asked for numerous documents, which is for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings.It is neither a supervisory nor an adjudicating authority over the second respondent.When the element of expertise is involved and the same is undertaken by the statutory body as per law, the power of judicial review will have to be entertained with extreme caution.We cannot interfere with the matter on some apprehension expressed by the appellants.Now the substantial part of the project is over insofar as the appellants are concerned.There is no material available to controvert the reasoning in the impugned orders.The learned Single Judge in V.Shankar and others Vs.the District Collector, Dharmapuri, considering the objections which are almost similar to the objections raised in this Writ Petition dismissed the petition and summed up as below:The said Crl.O.P was dismissed by this Court.On the strength of the powers conferred upon the Power Grid Corporation, to enter upon the lands and to erect transmission, the 3 rd and 11th respondents are carrying out the project.If really there is any element of damage, which are peculiar to the petitioners and others, they have everyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 22 right to make their representation to the District Collector, to increase the height of the Tower so as to avoid passing of electrostatic field near or under their house.If at all at any point, the flow of electrostatic field is felt, it is always open to them to represent the Authorities of the Officers of 4th and 11th respondents, to attend the defects.It is a sorry state of affairs that despite clear pronouncements of this Court on various occasions on this project, time and again under one pretext or other, writ petitions are filed on mis-information being percolate among public through sensational and irresponsible news.Those persons are bound to introspect themselves whether they are truly exposing the cause of public.After enjoying all comforts of electricity in their homes and business establishment, making fake protest for public consumption and mislead the pubic to stall the project, which by and large going to provide uninterpreted electricity supply, is only an attempt by some vested interest through the petitioners to keep the state in dark and perennial starvation for electricity.For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,458,646
JUDGMENT Anil K. Sen, J.In this revisional application one Sheikh Saifudidin Mondal, Secretary of Purui Union Amzad High School, is challenging the validity of an order dated March 5, 1976, passed by the Chief Judicial! Magistrate, Birbhum, whereby he stayed further proceedings of the criminal case pending before him till the disposal of an appeal pending before the Appeal Committee of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.It appears that on an information being lodged with the police by the then Secretary of the aforesaid school as against the opposite party Jamaluddin Ahmed an investigation was taken up as to how far the allegations of criminal breach of trust by the opposite party, who happened to be the Head Master of the school in respect of the school funds, are correct or not.Such an investigation being conducted the police found out a prima facie case as against the opposite party and submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 406/408 of the I.P.C. On the charge sheet as aforesaid the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed by the opposite party and the case was adjourned for framing of a charge.At this stage the opposite party filed an application praying that further proceedings in the criminal case should be stayed pending an appeal preferred by him to the Appeal Committee of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education which is yet pending.
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
145,869,693
It is asserted in theFIR that the informant received an information thatcontraband articles namely, tobacco, Pan Masala,scented Masala, scented beetle nuts, etc. have beenstored at some place.The informant along with somepolice staff, therefore, went to a house of onePandharinath Malode.It was about 01.00 a.m.Pandharinath opened the door.The informant toldPandharinath the purpose of their visit.DATE : DECEMBER 05, 2019PER COURT :-This is an application for bail under Section438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicantclaims to have apprehension of being arrested inconnection with Crime No.461 of 2019 registered withCIDCO Police Station, Dist.Aurangabad, for the offencespunishable under Sections 188, 273 and 328 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C.", forshort) and under Section 59 of the Food Safety andStandards Act.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 23:25:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 23:25:09 :::2 ABA.1402-193. Perused the First Information Report (FIR)and related papers.Pandharinath, in turn, took them to one up-stairpremises taken on rent.In the said room, two plasticbags, two gunny bags and some boxes, containing Vimalscented Pan Masala, scented tobacco, Raj Niwasscented Pan Masala, Jafrani Jarda, Rajanigandhascented Pan Masala, Hira Pan Masala, etc., totalworth Rs.5,76,056/-, were stored.The informantseized those contraband articles.Samples from someof these articles were obtained for chemical ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 23:25:09 ::: 3 ABA.1402-19analysis.Since consumption of aforesaid articles isinjurious to health, there is a ban for carrying,storing and selling those articles in Maharashtra.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 23:25:09 :::It is further alleged in the FIR that onenquiry with Pandharinath, he told to have boughtthose articles from Nadeem Raj Traders.Learned Counsel for the applicant wouldsubmit that the applicant is no way concerned withthe seized contraband articles.It is an accused, whoinformed the police to have bought those contrabandarticles from Nadeem Raj Traders.Said statement isnot admissible against the applicant.According tolearned Counsel, Section 328 of I.P.C. has noapplication in the given set of facts.He, therefore,urged for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned APP would, on the other hand, submitthat there is a big haul of contraband articles.Theapplicant has history of commission of similaroffence.He, therefore, urged for rejection of theapplication.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 23:25:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 23:25:09 :::Vimal scented Pan Masala, scented tobacco, Raj Niwasscented Pan Masala, Jafrani Jarda, Rajanigandhascented Pan Masala, Hira Pan Masala, etc., totalworth Rs.5,76,056/-, came to be seized from a roompossessed by Pandharinath.There is, prima facie,nothing to indicate that Pandharinath has boughtthose articles from the applicant, except the barewords of Pandharinath.Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence.-- Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 23:25:09 :::indicates that for its invocation, there has eitherto be administration of poisonous substance orcausing it to be taken by a person with intent tocause hurt to such person.As such, Section 328 ofI.P.C. has application to an accomplished act ofadministration of poisonous substance.Aurangabad, for the offences punishable underSections 188, 273 and 328 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code and under Section 59 of the FoodSafety and Standards Act, the applicant be released ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 23:25:09 ::: 6 ABA.1402-19on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one surety in the likeamount.The applicant shall attend the concernedpolice station as and when required.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 23:25:09 :::[R.G. AVACHAT, J.]kbp ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 23:25:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2019 23:25:09 :::
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
145,872,913
As regards Sonu, police can interrogate him only after he becomes available to the police.Of course, serious efforts need to be made by the Investigating Officer, to locate and then interrogate him.W.P. 1674/2009 Page 3 of 5The investigation cannot be transferred to Crime Branch, merely because the complainant so desires.Unless it is shown that there has been some misconduct or negligence on the part of the Area Police, transfer of investigation will not be justified and may result in demoralising the local police.Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the investigation carried out so far, there is no good ground for transferring the investigation of the case to the Crime Branch.It is, however, directed that efforts will be made to locate Sonu and interrogate him at the earliest.Further investigation will be carried out under the supervision Crl.W.P. 1674/2009 Page 5 of 5W.P. 1674/2009 Page 5 of 5This is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs:-(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other suitable writ/writs order and directions against the Crl.W.P. 1674/2009 Page 1 of 5 respondent No.2 and 3 to register a case against the accused persons mentioned in Annexure P-2, U/s 395/452 and 328 IPC and investigate the case of the petitioner and arrest the accused persons and punish them under the law.W.P. 1674/2009 Page 1 of 5(ii) Issue appropriate writ/writs orders and directs against the respondent No.1 and 2 to transfer the case of the petitioner to crime branch, Delhi for fair investigation.(iii) Issue appropriate writ/writs orders and directions against the respondent No.2 to change the I.O.(iv) Issue an appropriate writ/writs order and directions against the respondent No.1 to register a case U/s 201 IPC against the respondent No.3 and 4 (SHO of Aman Vihar and Chowki Incharge) for saving the accused persons from the legal punishment.(v) Issue appropriate writ/writs directions and orders against the respondent No.2 to provide protection to the petitioner and his witnesses.The case of the petitioner is that he had gone to Paharganj, Delhi on 27 th October 2009 and handed over the key of his house to one Bhagwan Dass, who was requested to Crl.W.P. 1674/2009 Page 2 of 5 take care of the house.It has been further alleged that in the night of 30th November 2009, accused Sandeep and Deepu came to house of the petitioner and met Bhagwan Dass.They gave some tobacco to him, on chewing which, Bhagwan Dass became unconscious.Thereafter, Sandeep, Deepu, Sonu, Bunty and Shekhar looted the household articles, jewellery, etc. from the house of the petitioner.W.P. 1674/2009 Page 2 of 5A perusal of the status report filed by the State would show that FIR No. 345/2009 under Section 380 of IPC has already been registered and investigation has already been taken up.Statements of witnesses, including that of Bhagwan Dass, have also been recorded.It has also been stated in the status report that Sandeep and Deepu were interrogated at length but, nothing incriminating came out against them.As regards Sonu, Bunty and Shekhar, it has been stated in the status report that Bunty and Shekhar were interrogated but, nothing incriminating was found during their interrogation.The third person Sonu could not be found at his house and efforts are being made to trace him and then interrogate him.The police cannot be directed to arrest anyone without there being sufficient evidence against him and without there Crl.W.P. 1674/2009 Page 3 of 5 being any necessity of arresting him.No one can be arrested merely because the complainant suspects him to be involved in the theft of his articles.W.P. 1674/2009 Page 4 of 5 of the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police and on concluding investigation, the report will be produced before the concerned DCP, for approval, before it is submitted to the Court.W.P. 1674/2009 Page 4 of 5W.P.(Crl.) 1674/2009 stands disposed of with these directions.(V.K.JAIN) JUDGE MARCH 11, 2010 Ag Crl.
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
145,877,662
As per the prosecution story, P.W.2 Balasaheb Kshirsagar, P.W.3 Balkrishna Bhawar, P.W.4 Shivraj Ritapure and P.W.18 Ravindra Mohanlal Oza are eye witnesses to the alleged incident.As per the prosecution case, on 5.7.2011 at about 5.30 p.m. deceased Suhas Shinde came on motor cycle in front of Raviraj Beer Bar and when he was getting down from the motor cycle, all accused persons came there on another motor cycle in front of said Raviraj Beer Bar near deceased Suhas Shinde.The absconding accused Anant Shinde was having sword in his hand, they got down from their motor cycle and absconding accused Anant Shinde gave blows of sword on the face, neck and hand of deceased Suhas and other accused persons gave fist and kick blows to him.Deceased Suhas fell down on the ground.The accused persons were saying that they will kill deceased Suhas.Deceased Suhas anyhow got up and started running from Shivaji Chowk to Sonar Galli (jewellers lane).All the accused persons started chasing by saying that they would kill him.At that time, absconding accused Anant Shinde had sword in his::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -30- hand.Deceased Suhas went from market to Kothavale Jewellers.Deceased Suhas had taken shelter inside the shop of said Kothavale Jewellers.It further appears from the spot panchnama Exh.48 and the map drawn on it that towards northern side of the spot of incident from Shivaji statue, the road goes to Jewellery lane.The said shop is 10x12 feet in size having one counter towards southern side of the shop.P.W.18 Ravindra Oza is an independent witness, whose presence near Raviraj Beer Bar and Permit Room at the relevant::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 ::: crapl367.13 -36- time cannot be said to be by chance.There is absolutely no reason to discard his evidence.P.W. 6 Satish Tekale has further deposed that deceased Suhas ran towards Kothavale Jewellers in bleeding condition.The said motor cycle was having sticker of Anant Chonde on its front side.He had thereafter rushed to Kothavale jewellers.Deceased Suhas was lying in a pool of blood.Date of Reserving the Judgment : 13.06.2018 Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 16.07.2018 JUDGMENT (PER V.K. JADHAV, J.) :-The appellant Samadhan Balasaheb Shinde (Patil) has filed criminal appeal No. 367 of 2013 thereby challenging the judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No. 125 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. sentencing the appellant/original accused No.2 Samadhan to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for two years whereas the State has filed criminal appeal No. 46 of 2014 challenging the very same judgment against acquittal of original accused No.1 and original accused No.3 Netaji Achyut Shinde (Patil) and Balasaheb Kalyanrao Shinde (Patil) respectively, of the offences punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.. Since both these appeals arise from same Sessions case, they are being decided by this common judgment.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::The prosecution version, as unfolded during trial, is as under:- a. On 5.7.2011, at about 5.30 p.m. in Shivaji Chowk, in front of Raviraj Beer Bar, Kallam, district Osmanabad, all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention assaulted deceased Suhas and inflicted injuries on his person with the help of sword and by fist and kick blows.On the same day, at about 7.15 p.m. deceased Suhas died in the S.R.T.S. Medical College and Hospital, Ambejogai.On the basis of the complaint lodged by P.W.1 Ramhari Shinde, crime No. 80 of 2011 came to be registered at Kallam police station for the offences punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. The prosecution case rests upon direct evidence and also dying declaration made by deceased Suhas before the eye witnesses.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad framed charges against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.. All accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.The prosecution has examined in all 21 witnesses to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused.The defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication out of political enmity and dispute on account of agricultural properties.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::crapl367.13 -4- b. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, upon considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as documentary evidence on record, found that the prosecution evidence as against accused No.1 Netaji Shinde and accused No.3 Balasaheb Shinde is doubtful and acquitted them, however, convicted original accused No.2 Samadhan Balasaheb Shinde for the aforesaid offences.Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant Samadhan Balasaheb Shinde (Patil) has filed criminal appeal no. 367 of 2013 thereby challenging his conviction and the State has filed criminal appeal no. 46 of 2014 challenging the very same judgment thereby acquitting accused No.1 Netaji Achyut Shinde (Patil) and accused No.3 Balasaheb Kalyanrao Shinde (Patil), as aforesaid.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused in criminal appeal no. 367 of 2013 submits that the first information report is received to the police station at 5.45 p.m. The said FIR is lodged by Ravi Harkar and Vishwajeet Thombre, who were the eye witnesses.They are not examined by the prosecution as they have specifically stated that two persons have assaulted the deceased.Thus the entire theory put forth by the prosecution in respect of the eye::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -5- witnesses and the dying declaration is a concocted story in order to involve the present appellant in the crime due to political rivalry and civil dispute in respect of agricultural land.The prosecution case as a whole, if compared with the FIR which was lodged at 5.45 p.m., there are major omissions and variations which are contrary to the medical evidence.Thus the FIR below Exhibit 85 at 11.45 p.m. is delayed beyond six hours and no explanation for the same is given by the prosecution.Furthermore, considering the medical papers, the deceased was declared dead at 7.30 p.m. The distance between Ambajogai to Kallam is 45 Kms.The FIR ought to have been registered at the most by 9.00 p.m. However, the same is registered at 11.45 p.m. The delay is not explained by the prosecution.Furthermore, there are major contradictions on record in respect of commission of offence whether by two persons or four.The M.L.C. was received to the police station at 6.45 p.m. Thus, it was necessary to register FIR but the same was delayed to construct a different story.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::6 The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that all the witnesses examined are relatives and political workers, except the police authorities and Doctors.Further, P.W.1 admits that there was a party programme at Raigavhan.Thus, evidence of the relatives and party workers is contrary to the other documentary::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -6- evidence.The eye witnesses examined by the prosecution are relatives.However, no one has informed the police in respect of the said incident till their statements were recorded by the police.This act of the eye witnesses is doubtful.There is unexplained delay in recording statements of eye witnesses as no explanation is given as to why their statements were not recorded immediately.The evidence of eye witnesses is contrary to the first information report received to the police station at 5.45 p.m. as it does not corroborate with the said FIR.Considering the prosecution case as compared with the FIR at 7.30 p.m., there are major omissions and variances in the statements of eye witnesses.All the eye witnesses are interested witnesses and no independent eye witnesses were examined though 52 to 100 people were present at the scene of incident.All the eye witnesses were able to tell the registration number of motorcycle of the accused.They were also telling that some sticker was affixed to the number plate of the motorcycle of the accused, but no one was able to tell the registration number of motorcycle of the deceased or even the colour of the bike.Furthermore, the location of Raviraj Beer Bar was not known to the eye witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the evidence of eye witnesses does not inspire confidence as the description of the scene given by each of the eye witnesses is::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -7- different and this is major contradiction.P.W.2 has stated that the deceased was assaulted in front of Raviraj Beer Bar.The distance between Hotel Raviraj and the complex is 50 feet.The evidence in respect of registration number of motorcycle is an after thought.P.W.3 has stated that the accused stopped the motorcycle behind Suhas.Thereafter he has stated that motorcycle of Suhas was facing west and accused stopped the bike at south side of Suhas.P.W.4 has stated that the distance between Raj Hotel and Raviraj Beer Bar is 150 feet and the accused parked the vehicle in front of the motorcycle of Suhas.All the witnesses were able to state registration number of motorcycle of the accused, their names, the sticker affixed to the number plate of the motorcycle of the accused, but were unable to tell the colour and registration number of motorcycle of the deceased and the location of Raviraj Beer Bar when the incident had taken place in fraction of minutes.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the eye witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 are from different villages, there was no possibility of the accused being known to them.Even though, without holding the identification parade they have specifically attributed role to each of the accused.The eye witnesses in their evidence have specifically stated that deceased was able to speak, whereas P.W.1 has admitted that his condition was critical.The::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -8- evidence of eye witnesses is also doubtful, as P.W.5 has specifically stated that the police were present when the deceased fell down in the jewelery shop.Thus, there is major contradiction in the evidence of eye witness and P.W.5 in respect of presence of accused and the theory put forth by them.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the theory of dying declaration put forth by the prosecution is contrary to the medical evidence as the same is not corroborated by the medical evidence.It was highly impossible to utter words as injury was to right side of maxilla and mandible.If there was injury to upper jaw and lower jaw, it was highly impossible to give dying declaration.If the deceased was in fit condition to speak, he would have been given the case history in the hospital as the same has not been done and relatives have given the history.The deceased was in influence of alcohol, thus the theory put forth of dying declaration is doubtful and could not be the basis for conviction of the present appellant.In the evidence of P.W.1 complainant and P.W.7 Doctor, they have specifically stated that condition of the deceased was critical and he was in shock.Further, P.W.5 shop owner of jewellery has specifically stated that deceased had fallen down in the shop.Thus considering the entire documentary and oral evidence, the dying declaration does not inspire confidence.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the recovery of clothes of accused U/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is contrary to the settled principles of law, as the distance between the police station to Kothala is 15 to 20 K.M. It takes 15 to 20 minutes to travel to the village Kothala from police station.The police have traveled the distance of 15 to 20 K.M. within five minutes.This itself shows from the recovery panchnama that the recovery of clothes of accused was doubtful and cannot be considered to convict the present appellant.The recovery of clothes of accused U/s 27 is in open place and the same cannot be considered.As regards the recovery of cloths of the deceased, the learned counsel submits that the same is also contrary to the procedure prescribed.The same is also disbelieved by the learned sessions court as recovery of clothes of deceased is contrary to the inquest panchnama and seizure panchnama.Different clothes are shown in the seizure panchnama though inquest panchnama shows some different clothes.There is no explanation given by the prosecution about change of clothes of deceased in the inquest panchnama.The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the evidence in respect of Muddemal articles is doubtful as the said articles were sealed on 06.07.2011 and after two and half months i.e.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -10- on 18.09.2011 the same were sent for chemical analysis.No evidence to that effect is adduced, nor the investigation officer has given any explanation for the delay of about 2 and half months in sending the Muddemal articles for chemical analysis.Furthermore, the possibilities of tampering the muddemal articles cannot be ruled out as the same were kept in police station in open space.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as regards medical evidence is concerned, no blood sample of accused was taken by the investigation officer.There is no evidence to that effect, however, blood group of the accused is shown in the C.A. report.Thus, the report of C.A. in respect of blood groups of accused has no basis as there were no blood samples of the accused persons available.As regards the evidence of prosecution and allegations made against the present accused in respect of kicks and blows, medical evidence does not support the prosecution case.There are no any abrasions or any evidence of kicks and blows on the person of the deceased.Thus the prosecution theory of kicks and blows is contrary to the medical evidence.P.W. 1 has admitted that the condition of deceased was critical and therefore he had referred the deceased for further treatment to Ambajogai.However, this evidence of the expert was not considered by the court.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that P.W.1 has admitted that father of Netaji and his family are political rivals.Further, he has also admitted that there was a dispute pending in respect of landed property bearing R.C.S. No. 124 of 2000 filed by Pradeep Shrihari Shinde who is cousin brother of the deceased.The learned counsel submits that the evidence would show that uncle of the deceased was also murdered.Father of the deceased was tried for the offence punishable U/s. 302 of I.P.C. The complaints were also filed against P.W.1 and the deceased.There was major defects in seizure of clothes of both, the deceased and the accused.As per the evidence of panch witness, it takes 15 to 20 minutes to reach the place Kothala by jeep, however, within 5 minutes they have reached the place and started the panchnama.Three investigation officers are changed within a week, out of which one is transferred mid-term.All these circumstances create doubt and possibility of political interference cannot be ruled out.The LAQ was also raised in the legislative assembly due to which there was political interference.The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the evidence of P.W.8 is ambiguous and not reliable considering the missing of complaint given by him regarding the stolen motorcycle.Further, there is also delay of 7 days in disclosing the same to the::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -12- police as P.W. 8 has stated that on the day of incident the accused has confessed him, but he has not given the details regarding the same to the police.On the contrary, he has given missing complaint in respect of his bike.The prosecution has also failed to place on record the details of phone calls in respect of communication by the accused to the present witness, though he has stated that he has received the statement of confession on cell phone.The evidence of P.W.8 is not trustworthy.The prosecution has failed to prove the requirement of Section 34 of I.P.C. as the prosecution has failed to prove common intention, prior meeting of minds or plan.Thus the conviction based on Section 34 of I.P.C. is not corroborated by documentary evidence, medical evidence or oral evidence inspiring confidence of prior meeting of minds.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that P.W. 19, P.W.20 and P.W.21 are the investigation officers in the said crime.P.W.19 admits that he made entry in station diary at 5.45 p.m. Three PSI and 10 constables were deputed to the spot at 5.50 p.m. and they were investigating the crime from 7.50 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. P.W.19 admits that he had knowledge of incident at 5.50 p.m. Inspite of having knowledge about the incident, he has failed to lodge FIR.There are major contradictions in respect of two persons having assaulted one person, though he had made entry of same::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -13- crime at 11.45 p.m. in the station diary.P.W. 19 also admits that FIR was delayed and have stated it was delayed beyond six hours.P.W.20 admits that, entries in the station diary are correct.He admits that there is over writing in Muddemal register.He also admits that constable Bale, who had brought clothes, was not examined by the prosecution.Further, he was not able to tell about the change of clothes of deceased as per P.M. notes and seizure panchanama.He admits that he was transferred.P.W.21 admits that requisition for call details was sent, however no details were received.Considering the aforesaid evidence on record, the appeal may kindly be allowed and the conviction of the present appellant may kindly be set aside and he may be acquitted.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::Learned counsel for the appellant in criminal appeal No. 367 of 2013, in order to substantiate his submissions placed reliance on the following judgments:-iii) Ganesh Bhavan Patil and another vs. State of Maharashtra,::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -14- reported in AIR 1979 SC 135,::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::vi) Balvindar Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1996 SC 609vii) Swaminathan and other vs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in 2011 (1) SCD9Cri)viii) Suresh Sakaram Nangare vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2012 STPL (LE) 46819 SC.Learned A.P.P. for the respondent State in criminal appeal No. 367 of 2013 and appellant in criminal appeal No. 46 of 2014 submits that entire prosecution case is based upon direct evidence of four eye witnesses, as all these eye witnesses are not shattered in lengthy cross examination.The prosecution has proved the evidence of four independent eye witnesses as consistent and corroborate to each other.Learned A.P.P. submits that the eye witnesses have given details about the incident with names of accused, their role in the assault and also stated in specific about arrival of accused persons at the spot, giving blows without any::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -15- altercations.This version of the prosecution witnesses fulfills the requirement of Section 34 of the I.P.C. The evidence of P.W.8 Parmeshwar Patil corroborates the evidence of the eye witnesses.The evidence of P.W.18 Ravindra Oza clearly establish the oral dying declaration of deceased Suhas, which was made voluntarily.In so far as criminal appeal No.367 of 2013, learned A.P.P. submits that the learned Sessions Judge has properly considered the evidence in respect of appellant Samadhan Shinde and has rightly convicted the said accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and there is no error committed by the learned Sessions Judge, to that extent.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::Learned A.P.P. for the respondent in criminal appeal No. 367 of 2013 and for appellant in criminal appeal No. 46 of 2014, in order to substantiate his submissions placed reliance on the following judgments:-i) Tapinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1970 AIR (SC) 1566,ii) Gaya Prasad Ramal vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1971 AIR(SC) 1112,::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -16-::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::iii) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. P.A. Madhu, reported in 1984 AIR (SC) 1523,Learned counsel for accused Nos. 1 and 3 i.e. respondents in criminal appeal No. 46 of 2014 submits that the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the present respondents-accused assaulted the deceased by fists and kick blows, however, no such injuries were found on the body of deceased and the cause of death of deceased is hemorrhage and shock due to multiple stab injuries, homicidal in nature.There is no specific evidence as to which of accused was instigating assailant accused and there are general allegations against all accused persons.The defence of the respondents is that they were not present at the scene of incident, which is supported by station diary, as the station diary disclosed that two persons came on motorcycle and assaulted the deceased Suhas.The name of the respondents are involved in the said crime due to village politics.Learned counsel submits that provisions of Section 34 of I.P.C. can be attracted when the prosecution must prove that the criminal act has been done in concert with the prearranged plan, mere proof that some accused persons are present on the spot is not sufficient.The prosecution has failed to::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -17- examine one Ravi Harkar and Thombre, when these two persons are in fact independent eye witnesses and they informed the police in respect of happening of the incident over telephone.The prosecution have examined three eye witnesses and other two witnesses in respect of dying declaration, but all these witnesses are interested witnesses, as all these witnesses and related the complainant, hence, their versions are doubtful and untrustworthy.In addition to that, the statements of these witnesses are recorded after 14 hours of the incident, though they are termed as eye witnesses, no statements were recorded though they were available at hospital and police station.Learned counsel submits that if the story of prosecution is taken as it is for the sake of arguments, then also it is not possible that four persons are came on one motorcycle and assaulted by means of sword to the deceased.Learned counsel therefore, submits that the criminal appeal No. 46 of 2014 filed by the respondent State against the judgment and order of acquittal of respondents deserves to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::F.I.R. Exh. 36 cannot be treated as F.I.R., as the concerned police station has already got the information about the incident at about 5.40 p.m. and there is entry at Sr.No. 39 taken in the station diary by the concerned police, pursuant to the said information.Consequently, the F.I.R. Exh.36 cannot be treated as F.I.R.. The oral dying declaration cannot be taken into consideration as there is no evidence on record to establish that deceased was in fit mental condition to give oral dying declaration.It has also been submitted on behalf of the accused that the so called eye witnesses are highly interested witnesses and in fact they are got up witnesses.Learned defence counsel has also vehemently submitted that since there is delay of six hours in lodging the F.I.R. Exh.36, the possibility of so called eye witnesses having joined hands in deposing against the accused persons cannot be ruled out in absence of honest investigation by the police.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::Learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the F.I.R. Exh. 36 cannot be treated as F.I.R. and the same can be treated as statement under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has concluded that entry made in the station diary at Sr.No. 39 is the F.I.R. wherein a reference has been given to two assailants only.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the medical evidence on record discarded the prosecution evidence on the point of oral dying declaration.In para 37 of the judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge though observed that the eye witnesses and some of other witnesses are directly or indirectly related to the informant Ramhari, further observed that this fact itself is not sufficient to discard their testimony unless it is brought on record that they are interested witnesses.Learned Additional Sessions Judge in the same para has concluded to the effect that the said eye witnesses are not interested eye witnesses.On careful perusal of the entire judgment, we find that learned Additional Sessions Judge has given importance to station diary entry at Sr.No.39 and without discussing ocular evidence convicted the appellant accused Samadhan on the basis of the evidence of P.W.8 Parmeshwar Patil with regard to the use of motor cycle in the alleged commission of crime by the accused persons.The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the evidence of P.W.8 Parmeshwar Patil::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -20- relevant to connect the appellant accused No.2 Samadhan with the crime alongwith absconding accused by giving importance to station diary entry at Sr.No.39 which discloses the commission of alleged crime by two assailants only.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not discussed the ocular evidence and on the basis of medical evidence alone has given benefit of doubt to the original accused No.1 and original accused No.3 Netaji Achyut Shinde (Patil) and Balasaheb Kalyanrao Shinde (Patil) respectively.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::It is the duty of an appellate court to look into evidence adduced in case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution case can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence.The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate court in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::On careful perusal of the station diary entry at Sr.No.39 Exh.85, it appears that two persons viz. Ravi Harkar and Vishwajeet Thombre informed to the police on phone that near the corner of Municipal Council complex, adjacent to visitable market, two persons, who came on motorcycle assaulted one person and inflicted blow on his person with the help of sword and the said injured person in order to save his life ran towards jewellery shop and taken shelter there.They informed that the injured person is unconscious and asked to send the police team immediately.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::The learned counsel appearing for the accused persons in both the appeals, have vehemently submitted that those two witnesses, who have informed to the concerned police on phone at 5.45 p.m. and on the basis of which entry in the station diary was taken at Sr.No.39, were the eye witnesses and they were not examined by the prosecution.Thus, entire theory put-forth by the other eye witnesses and also dying declaration is concocted story in order to involve the accused persons in the crime due to political rivalry and civil dispute in respect of agricultural land.It has also been submitted that the deceased was initially taken to the Government Hospital at Kallam and thereafter to S.R.T.S. Medical College and Hospital Ambajogai.The deceased was declared dead at 7.30 p.m. The distance between Ambajogai and Kallam is hardly 45 kilometers and the said F.I.R. ought to have been registered till 9.00 p.m. at the most, however, F.I.R. Exh 36 came to be lodged at 11.45 p.m.. Even on the basis of the M.L.C. received by the concerned police station, at 6.45 p.m. from the Government Hospital Kallam, no F.I.R. was registered.Learned A.P.P. has vehemently submitted that though entry was taken in the station diary of the police station by the police officer responding to the telephone call, the said cryptic oral message which::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -23- did not in terms clearly specify the name of deceased and assailants and as such the same cannot be treated as F.I.R. The mere fact that the said information was the first in point of time, does not by itself clothe it with the character of F.I.R.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::Thus, considering the rival submissions on the point of F.I.R., the said entry in the station diary at Sr.No.39, though first in point of time, in our considered opinion, was lacking any particulars about the incident, such as time, place, names of assailants and also the deceased.It further appears from entry in the station diary at Sr. No.40 that on the basis of the aforesaid information the police team comprising the A.P.I., P.S.I., and other police staff went towards spot of incident in a jeep.It was a cryptic report and the entry was taken in station diary only for the purpose of visiting the scene of occurrence.The same is evident from entry No. 40 as mentioned above.We are disinclined to treat entry at Sr.No.39 in station diary as the F.I.R. and discard the F.I.R. Exh.36 on this basis.Further the informant P.W.1 Ramhari had gone to the Government Hospital at Kallam on receipt of the information from P.W.2 who happened to be the eye witness to the incident and further took the deceased in ambulance to the Government Hospital at Ambajogai.We will deal with the evidence of P.W.1 alongwith ocular evidence in later part of the judgment but suffice it to say that in absence of the particulars::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -24- about the incident, such as time, place, names of the assailants and name of deceased, we are not inclined to treat the entry at Sr.No.39 in the station diary as F.I.R. as concluded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the sessions trial.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::On the basis of the said details recorded in the station diary entry the Supreme Court observed that the said station diary entry is made on oral report made by one Rajendra and further the said entry discloses with reasonable certainty commission of cognizable crime by four persons as named by the informant Rajendra.This entry also::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -25- discloses that the assault was made and the deceased was lying in front of the house.In the instant case, though the names of informants are disclosed, cryptic information has been given on phone without specifying the names of the assailants so also the deceased and other particulars so as to disclose with reasonable certainty commission of cognizable crime by certain persons.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::In the instant case, the reasons on the basis of which the learned Additional Sessions Judge attempted to give weightage to entry No. 39 in the station diary are not at all the reasons on the basis of which F.I.R. Exh.36 could be discarded in its entirety.We are of the considered opinion that it is not the case where two views are possible.If the said cryptic information in the form of entry in the station diary at Sr. No. 39 is treated as F.I.R., the same would amount to discard the legal and admissible evidence.The next question would arise as to whether there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. Exh.36 and as such, there is possibility of eye witnesses being highly interested, having joined hands deposing against the accused persons in absence of honest investigation by the police.The incident had taken place at about 5.30 p.m.. After the::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -26- incident, deceased Suhas was immediately taken to Rural Hospital, Kallam and as per the M.L.C. Exh.45, he was examined by P.W.7 Dr. Madhukar Suryawanshi at about 6.00 p.m. Till that time, P.W.1 Ramhari Shinde had reached to the Rural Hospital, Kallam.He had seen injuries on the person of deceased Suhas, whose condition was serious at that time.As per the medical advice, injured Suhas was immediately taken to S.R.T.S. Medical College and Hospital at Ambajogai in ambulance.It is not disputed that deceased Suhas died at about 7.15 p.m. at S.R.T.S. Medical College and Hospital, Ambajogai.Deceased Suhas was nephew of P.W.1 Ramhari Shinde.It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of journey in ambulance from Kallam to S.R.T.S. Medical College and Hospital, Ambajogai, deceased Suhas had given oral dying declaration before P.W.1 Ramhari Shinde and the persons accompanied him in the ambulance itself, explaining the cause of injuries sustained by him, disclosing the names of assailants with specific role played by them in the assault and also the weapons used in the assault.Deceased Suhas had also stated in his oral dying declaration as to the spot of incident and arrival of the accused persons on the spot on motorcycle.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in criminal appeal No. 367 of 2013 and also learned counsel appearing for the::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -27- respondents-accused in criminal appeal No. 46 of 2014 have vehemently submitted that P.W.1 Ramhari Shinde got ample time to lodge the complaint immediately in the Police Chowki at S.R.T.S. Medical College and Hospital at Ambajogai or even in the police station at Kallam, however, there is considerable delay of six hours for which no explanation is tendered by the prosecution.They have submitted that P.W.1 Ramhari Shinde has lodged belated complaint deliberately and falsely involving the accused persons in the alleged crime.They have also submitted that the so called eye witnesses are got up witnesses and at the instance of P.W.1 Ramhari Shinde those eye witnesses are joined hands in deposing against the accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::We have carefully perused the evidence of P.W.1 Ramhari and also perused the various documents exhibited by the learned Additional Sessions Judge during the course of trial.The learned Additional Session Judge since given importance to the entry at Sr.Though there is no explanation tendered by P.W.1 Ramhari either in his oral evidence or in the F.I.R. Exh.36 about delay in lodging the complaint, however, we cannot ignore that deceased::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -28- Suhas was his nephew, aged 38 years at the time of his death.In para 8 of the cross examination, we find that P.W.1 Ramhari had responded to the cross examination and stated that they started return journey from Ambajogai to Kallam at about 9.45 to 10.00 p.m.. It has come in the cross examination of P. W.1 Ramhari that distance between Kallam and Ambajogai is 45 kilometers.Thus, in between 9.45 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. if P.W.1 Ramhari left Ambajogai to reach Kallam then he might have reached to Kallam around 10.45 to 11.00 p.m. We find it difficult to accept the submissions made on behalf of accused that P.W.1 Ramhari who lodged the complaint Exh.36 around 23.45 hours in the police station at Kallam, had an opportunity to cook up the false story and thereby implicate the accused falsely in the crime.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::Learned counsel for the accused persons have placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashraf Hussain Shah vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1996 Cri.In the said case, the Division Bench of this court has considered the delay in lodging the complaint as fatal to the prosecution case for the reason that even though the informants were at the police station for the hours, did not lodge the F.I.R. In the facts of the said case, this Court held that their conduct was highly unnatural and improbable::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -29- and was sufficient to hold that they did not see the incident.In the instance case, P.W.1 Ramhari Shinde after returning from S.R.T.S. Medical College and Hospital, Ambejogai, immediately lodged the complaint in the concerned police station and as such there is no delay in lodging the complaint.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::He was taken to rural hospital, Kallam from the shop of Kothavale Jewellers, where deceased Suhas was lying in injured condition.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::On careful perusal of the contents of spot panchnama at Exh.48 and the map drawn on it (the prosecution has duly proved the contents of spot panchnama through P.W.9 Pratap Pawar) and also on perusal of the map drawn by the Circle Officer, Division Kallam, the map of spot of actual assault and also the map of Jewellers lane drawn by the Circle Officer, Division Kallam at Exh.51 and 52 (admitted by defence), we find that the spot of assault (incident) is situated in front of Raviraj Beer Bar.The said Raviraj Beer Bar is situated in front of Padmasingh Patil complex.There is road in between Padmasingh Patil complex and Raviraj Beer Bar, which is approximately 100 feet in width.The spot of incident, as shown in the spot panchnama and the map drawn on it, is towards eastern side of Raviraj Beer Bar at a distance of 30 feet on the said road.The statue of Shivaji is at a distance of 135 feet from the spot of incident towards northern side.It further appears from the contents of the spot panchnama that the motor cycle bearing registration No. MH-14/BD-7331 was lying on the spot of incident and there were::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -31- blood stains on various parts of the said motor cycle.Furthermore, at a distance of 5 feet from the motor cycle, one chappal of left foot having blood stains and at a distance of 25 feet, another chappal of right foot were found lying.There is rexine pasted on the floor and blood was found on the said mattress (rexine).It has been specifically mentioned in the spot panchnama Exh.48 that towards southern side inside of the counter, blood was found on the mattress (rexine).In addition to this, blood was also found on the counter.In the backdrop of contents of the spot panchnama Exh.48 and the map drawn on it, we now discuss the evidence of eye witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::P.W.2 Balasaheb Kshirsagar is the witness who has given information about assault to P.W.1 Ramhari on phone.At that time P.W.1 Ramhari was at village Raigavan for party work.He had left the village Raigavan at 5.00 p.m. and reached to Diksal bus stop when he received the phone call from P.W.2 Balasaheb Kshirsagar.P.W. 2 Balasaheb Kshirsagar had informed him about the assault,::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 ::: crapl367.13 -32- weapons used in the assault, name of accused persons and also the fact that deceased Suhas ran towards Sonar Galli and the assailants chased him with sword.P.W. 1 Ramhari accordingly rushed towards the said Sonar Galli (jewellery lane).He was informed by the people gathered there that deceased Suhas was just taken to rural hospital Kallam and accordingly P.W.1 Ramhari immediately went to Rural hospital, Kallam.The name of P.W.2 Balasaheb Kshirsagar is specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. Exh.36 with all details, as discussed above.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:52 :::On careful perusal of deposition of P.W.2 Balasaheb Kshirsagar, it appears that on 5.7.2011 he was standing in front of Padmasingh Patil complex in Kallam.P.W.2 Balasaheb Kshirsagar has deposed about assault, name of the assailants, role played by them in the assault and further chasing to deceased Suhas by the accused persons towards Sonar Galli (jewellery lane) etc. In addition to that, P.W.2 Balasaheb Kshirsagar has specifically given registration number of motor cycle i.e. MH-25/W-1744 on which all accused persons arrived at the spot.He has also explained that there was sticker of Anant Chonde on the motor cycle and all accused ran away from Sonar Galli (jewellery lane) on the said motor cycle.P.W.2 Balasaheb Kshirsagar has also deposed that some two persons took injured Suhas in Rickshaw for primary treatment in the::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 ::: crapl367.13 -33- Government Hospital, Kallam.He had also accompanied them.He has also deposed that P.W.1 Ramhari reached in the rural hospital, Kallam thereafter.He has further deposed that Pradip Mete, Vikas Barkul, Prashant Lomate and Satish Tekale, took deceased Suhas towards S.R.T.S. Medical College and Hospital, Ambajogai in ambulance.He did not accompany them and returned back.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 :::36. P.W.3 Balkrishna Bhawar has deposed that on 5.7.2011 he was standing in front of Keshriya cloth store in Shivaji Chowk.As per the contents of the spot panchnama Exh.48 and the map drawn on it and also map at Exh.51 prepared by Circle Officer, Division Kallam, the said Keshriya cloth store is adjacent to Raviraj Beer Bar.He has also deposed in detail about the entire incident, as deposed by P.W.2 Balasaheb Kshirsagar.37. P.W.4 Shivraj Bhagwan Ritapure has deposed that on 5.7.2011 at about 5.30 p.m. when he was going from Raj Hotel to Shivaji chowk, at that time he witnessed the entire incident.He has deposed and given details of assault, weapons used in the assault, role played by the accused persons in the assault and further chasing the deceased Suhas towards Sonar Galli (jewellery lane).P.W.2 Balasaheb Kshirsagar is an agriculturist by occupation, P.W.3 Balkrishna Bhawar is professor and P.W.4 Shivraj Ritapure is also an::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 ::: crapl367.13 -34- agriculturist.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 :::The ocular evidence of all these witnesses has been assailed by the counsel appearing for the accused persons on the ground that they are highly interested witness as P.W.2 Balasaheb Kshirsagar is the relative of P.W.1 Ramhari, P.W.3 Balkrishna Bhawar is active party worker of N.C.P. and P.W.4 Shivraj Ritapure is also party worker of N.C.P. On careful perusal of evidence of these three witnesses, we are also of the view that their ocular evidence is not at all shaken in the cross examination.We are aware that the prosecution evidence, being unshaken in the cross examination of the witnesses, is not an acid test of their credibility and inherent probabilities and improbabilities of fact in issue should be prime consideration.The evidence of said witnesses cannot be discarded out rightly for the reason that they are relatives and interested witnesses.However, close scrutiny of their evidence is required to be undertaken.We record our conclusion on the basis of their evidence, the spot of incident, the surroundings, as detailed in the spot panchnama Exh.48 and the map drawn on it coupled with the evidence of other eye witnesses that evidence of these three eye witnesses is reliable, trustworthy and consistent.We find no specific reason for all these witnesses to falsely implicate the present accused persons in the crime only for the reason that they are::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 ::: crapl367.13 -35- relatives or party workers of N.C.P. We do not think that they are chance/got up witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 :::The prosecution has also examined the owner of said Raviraj Beer Bar and Permit Room P.W.18 Ravindra Mohanlal Oza.P.W.18 Ravindra Oza deposed that on 5.7.2011 he was standing outside the hotel.Deceased Suhas came on his motor cycle in front of his hotel.He has further deposed that the accused persons came there on motorcycle and absconding accused Anant Shinde was having sword in his hand.The said absconding accused Anant Shinde gave blows of sword to deceased Suhas and other accused persons gave fist and kick blows on him.Deceased Suhas fell down on the ground and when he was being beaten, he got up and ran towards Sonar Galli (jewellery lane) from Shivaji Chowk.P.W.18 Oza also followed him.P.W.18 Ravindra Oza has further deposed that all accused persons started chasing deceased Suhas and while chasing they were saying that deceased Suhas should be killed and finished.P.W.18 Ravindra Oza further deposed that deceased Suhas went to Kothavale jewellers and he was lying in the jewellery shop in injured condition.All accused persons ran away on the motor cycle.P.W.18 Ravindra Oza has also given registration number of the said motor cycle.On careful perusal of his cross examination, we find that his evidence remained unshaken though tested extensively in the cross examination.He had also specifically mentioned the name of P.W. 6 Satish Tekale and Pradeep Mete.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 :::The prosecution has examined P.W.6 Satish Tekale.Though P.W.6 Satish Tekale has not witnessed the actual incident of assault, according to him, he saw deceased Suhas Shinde came running from Shivaji Chowk with bleeding and absconding accused Anant Shinde came running behind him with sword in his hand.The other accused persons also running with the absconding accused and they were saying that deceased Suhas should be caught and killed.P.W.6 Satish Tekale and Pradeep Mete made futile attempt to intervene in the same.He asked deceased Suhas as to what happened and deceased Suhas had disclosed him entire incident of assault with specific role played by each of the accused::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 ::: crapl367.13 -37- and the weapons used in the assault.Thereafter, P.W.6 Satish Takale, Pradeep Mete and some other persons took deceased in auto rickshaw to the Rural Hospital, Kallam.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 :::The prosecution has also examined owner of Kothavale Jewellers P.W.5 Ashok Kothavale.He knew deceased Suhas as he was the son in law of the person from his village.On 5.7.2011, he was sitting in his shop.It was 5.35 p.m. Deceased Suhas came running to his shop and fell down inside the shop.Deceased Suhas asked P.W.5 Ashok Kothavale to save him.P.W.5 Ashok Kothavale, after looking outside, saw the mob of 15 to 20 persons.P.W.5 Ashok Kothavale asked deceased Suhas as to what happened and accordingly, deceased Suhas disclosed the entire incident, including names of the assailants, weapons used in the assault and the role played by each of them.P.W.5 Ashok Kothavale has also deposed that P.W.6 Satish Tekale and Pradeep Mete took him to the hospital.The evidence of P.W.5 Ashok Kothavale and P.W.6 Satish Tekale remained unshaken in the cross examination.Both of them have not exaggerated the version in any manner.They had deposed about the incident, as they have witnessed the subsequent chasing and also that deceased Suhas had taken shelter in the jewellery shop owned by P.W.5 Ashok Kothavale.In the backdrop of their independent, trustworthy, reliable and consistent evidence, we do not think that::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 ::: crapl367.13 -38- P.W. 2 to 4 are not reliable and trustworthy witnesses for the reason alone that they are interested witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 :::The evidence of aforesaid eye witnesses was also assailed on the ground that their police statements came to be recorded belatedly.We do not find any substance in this submission.P.W.20 P.I. Surwase has deposed that at about 00.00 hours, he was assigned with the investigation of crime No. 80 of 2011 and thus, he rushed to the spot of incident.The motor cycle of deceased Suhas lying on the spot also came to be seized.On the very day he has recorded the statements of 13 witnesses including eye witnesses.In the circumstances, we do not find any delay as such in recording the statements of eye witnesses.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also discarded the oral dying declaration made by deceased Suhas to P.W.1 Ramhari,::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 ::: crapl367.13 -39- P.W.5 Ashok Kothavale and P.W.6 Satish Tekale on the ground that there was intensive bleeding from the injuries sustained by deceased Suhas and it was one of the reason for hemorrhagic shock.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also considered the alcohol found in the blood of deceased and observed that it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that deceased Suhas was mentally fit to make oral dying declaration.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has further observed that in absence of any such proof, the evidence on the point of oral dying declaration is not reliable.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 :::Due to considerable loss of blood or obstruction to respiration or circulation, lack of oxygen develops, which also causes damage and changes in fluid balance inviting various degrees of shock.The shock usually appears immediately after receiving the injuries, but it may supervene after some time.In the instant case, the prosecution has set up a theory that deceased Suhas, after receiving the injuries, was able to speak and mention the names of his assailants.P.W.7 Dr. Madhukar Suryawanshi had an occasion to see and treat deceased Suhas initially at Government Hospital, Kallam.He has stated in his cross examination that there was heavy bleeding and the patient was impending to land into shock.He has not specifically noted whether deceased Suhas was able to speak.However, P.W.7 Dr. Suryawanshi had noted that because of low blood pressure::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 ::: crapl367.13 -40- deceased was landed into unconsciousness.He has also denied that due to injury No.1 deceased Suhas was not in a position to speak.He has also denied that vocal cords of deceased Suhas were also damaged.P.W.12 Dr. Vishwajeet Pawar has mentioned the external injuries in column No.17 in post mortem report.According to him, there was intensive hemorrhage and the patient may go in shock after bleeding.However, both the witnesses have nowhere given their opinion even after searching examination that deceased Suhas was not in a position to speak.It has come in the evidence of eye witnesses that even after sustaining the injuries and though there was bleeding from the said injuries, deceased Suhas ran towards jewellery shop to save himself and even in the jewellery shop, he made oral dying declaration mentioning the names of his assailants to the owner of the jewellery shop i.e. P.W.5 Ashok Kothavale.Even there are cases that such injured survived for some hours or days after receiving very grave injuries, which would ordinarily have proved rapidly fatal.Even if we consider the time factor, deceased Suhas had disclosed the names of his assailants immediately within few minutes after the assault and even during the course of journey towards S.R.T.S. Medical College and Hospital, Ambejogai in ambulance within half an hour from the alleged assault.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 :::crapl367.13 -41- Thus, considering the time factor and the distance crossed by deceased even after receiving the injuries, we give importance to the ocular evidence rather than the medical evidence which does not say positively that deceased was not able to speak since landed in shock.Thus we are not in agreement with the observations made by the learned Judge of the trial court.We accept the theory of oral dying declaration made before the eye witnesses as mentioned above, whose oral evidence is also not discarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.There are other circumstances, which support the prosecution case in its entirety.The accused assailants had used the motor cycle for arriving at the place of assault and even for fleeing away from the spot of incident.The prosecution has examined P.W.8 Parmeshwar Patil who has deposed that appellant-accused Samadhan had come to his shop at about 4.30 p.m. on the day of incident and took away the bike viz. Bajaj Discover bearing registration No. MH-25/W-1744 from him.The said motor cycle was being used by the brother of P.W.8 Parmeshwar Patil.P.W.8 Parmeshwar Patil gave the said bike to accused appellant Samadhan Shinde.At about 6.00 p.m., the appellant accused Samadhan talked him on mobile and informed about the quarrel with deceased Suhas Shinde.The appellant accused Samadhan also asked P.W.8 Parmeshwar Patil to take::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 ::: crapl367.13 -42- away the said bike which he kept at Kaij, Tq Kaij, District Beed.P.W.8 Parmeshwar Patil has further deposed that he has filed an application in Kaij police station to the effect that the bike was stolen.According to him, he had filed the complaint for the reason that he heard about the said quarrel.In order to avoid the responsibility and to save himself, he had filed the said complaint in the police station.Even after searching examination his evidence remained unshaken.Though the learned Judge of the trial court had considered his evidence to the extent that the appellant-accused Samadhan had made extra judicial confession before him, however, we restrain ourselves to stretch the things to that extent and inclined to consider the evidence of this witness to the extent that accused-appellant Samadhan had taken the said bike from him just half an hour before the alleged incident of assault.It would be necessary to repeat here that eye witnesses have referred the said motor cycle in their deposition alongwith the registration number and also photographs of absconding accused Anant Shinde pasted on the upper portion of head light mentioning the Saheb beneath it.It was abandoned at that place.There is also evidence about blood stained clothes of accused Netaji and appellant-accused Samadhan.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 :::Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 ::: crapl367.13 -43- Samadhan and also counsel appearing for the respondents-acquitted accused, vehemently submitted that there is no evidence to indicate that the accused have shared the common intention to kill the deceased.Deceased Suhas had not sustained any injuries due to fist and kick blows and as such prosecution has failed to prove the overt act on the part of these accused persons.The prosecution has failed to prove the pre-arranged plan or prior concert of mind and as such application of Section 34 of I.P.C. is wholly irrelevant.We do not find any substance in the submission made on behalf of the accused persons before us.It has come in the ocular evidence that as soon as deceased Suhas got down from his motor cycle, all accused persons came together on another motorcycle and one of the accused persons was holding sword in his hand at that time.The accused persons got down from the motorcycle and absconding accused Anant Shinde assaulted deceased Suhas with the help of sword whereas the accused persons before us assaulted the deceased with the help of fist and kick blows.It was a broad day light assault.All accused persons were asserting that deceased Suhas should be killed at once.Even after the assault, when deceased Suhas had started running towards jewellery shop, all accused persons chased him.All these circumstances unmistakably indicate that there was prior concert of mind of all accused persons to carry out their plan of assault on deceased Suhas.It further appears from::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 ::: crapl367.13 -44- the ocular evidence that all accused persons were knowing about the activities of deceased and accordingly they assaulted him as soon as he got down from his bike.Even the medical evidence on record supports the theory of assault by fist and kick blows.Deceased Suhas had sustained the abrasions which, according to the medical evidence, was possible due to assault by fist and kick blows.Both the Learned counsel appearing for the accused persons placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Swaminathan and other vs. State of Tamilnadu and Suresh Sakaram Nangare vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra).However, both the cases cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 :::We accordingly proceed to pass the following order:-ORDER I. Criminal appeal no. 367 of 2013 is hereby dismissed.Criminal appeal no. 46 of 2014 is hereby allowed.The judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.09.2013 passed by::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 ::: crapl367.13 -45- the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No. 125 of 2011 to the extent of acquittal of respondent No.1 Netaji Achyut Shinde (Patil) and respondent No.2 Balasaheb Kalyanrao Shinde (Patil) original accused Nos. 1 and 3, respectively, under Section 302 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. is hereby quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 :::The accused No.1 Netaji Achyut Shinde (Patil) and accused No.3 Balasaheb Kalyanrao Shinde (Patil) both residing at Kothala, Tq.Kallam, District Osmanabad, are hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and both of them are hereby sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.The accused No.1 Netaji Achyut Shinde (Patil) and accused No.3 Balasaheb Kalyanrao Shinde (Patil) shall surrender forthwith before the concerned trial court to suffer remaining part of sentence.The accused No.1 Netaji Achyut Shinde (Patil) and accused No.3 Balasaheb Kalyanrao Shinde (Patil) be given set off as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.V. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2018 01:34:53 :::
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
145,878,690
C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN)Call for the record of the trial Court.Heard on I.A. No.23/17 an application under Sections 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.The applicant No.1 has been convicted for committing an offence under Sections 148, 324 r/w 149 and 325 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year, R.I. for one year and R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- respectively in default of payment of fine R.I. for 1 month and applicant No.2 has been convicted for committing an offence under Sections 147, 324 r/w 149 and 325 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months, R.I. for one year and R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- respectively in default of payment of fine R.I. for one month.Looking to the short sentence of only three years, I am inclined to allow I.A. No.23/2017 and suspend the remaining part of jail sentence of the applicant No.1 Poonam Chandra and applicant No.2 Chousar Lal and direct that the applicants herein shall be released on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfactions of the trial Court.The applicants shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 17.05.2017 and on such other dates as may be directed in this behalf.
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
145,900,668
BRIJESH SETHI, J (oral) Amended memo of parties filed.The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 757/2018, under sections 323/354B/379/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), registered at P.S.: Mehrauli, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.The petitioners and respondent nos.2 to 5 submitted that they have settled their disputes on their own free will, without any force or W.P.(Crl.) 1989/2019 Page 1 of 2 coercion.Respondent nos.2 to 5 states that they do not want to pursue the matter.W.P.(Crl.) 1989/2019 Page 1 of 2Respondent nos.2 to 5, who are present in Court, have reiterated the aforesaid facts and submitted that they have amicably settled their dispute.Respondent nos.2 to 5 further submitted that they have no objection to the FIR being quashed and the petition being allowed.In view of the above settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the parties entangled in the criminal proceedings.Accordingly, in the interest of justice, FIR No. 757/2018, under sections 323/354B/379/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), registered at P.S.: Mehrauli, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.Petition is disposed of accordingly.
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
153,176,044
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.03 of 2012, pending before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore District.It is seen that the petitioners and 52 others were arrayed as accused by the respondent police in Crime No.143 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 392, 109 of IPC and Section 3 of TN PPDL Act.The respondent police after investigation, filed a final report before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Katumannarkoil, Cuddalore District as against the 50 persons.Since the petitioners were absconded, the case was split up insofar as the other accused persons in S.C.No.On the ground that the prosecution has not been proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the co-accused namely said accused persons has already been acquitted in the split up case and therefore, the said judgment must enure to the benefit of the petitioners also.The learned counsel would further submit that the nature of the allegation made against all the accused persons is similar and therefore, since the Court below had already found that there is no evidence as againsthttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 other accused persons, the same will apply to this petitioners also.He also relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in (2018) 2 MWN (Criminal) 442 in the case Anbuselvam Vs.State reads as follows:The State rep.By Inspector of Police, Paravakottai Police Station, Mannargudi Taluk, Thiruvarur District and 2008 (2) CTC 153 Thamilendi Vs.State rep. by The Inspector of Polie, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District and submitted that in view of the acquittal of three other co-accused, no useful purpose would be served to subject the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of the trial.The relevant portion of the judgments read as follows:II.Tamilmaran Vs.The State rep.By Inspector of Police, Paravakottai Police Station, Mannargudi Taluk, Thiruvarur District, reported in 2007 -1-L.W (Crl.) 514:“7.This Court is of the considered view that there is much force on the contention put forward by the learned senior counsel to the effect that the learned trial Judge having disbelieved the prosecution case in toto no useful purpose would be served by putting the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trail on the basis of the very same set of evidence.It is also pointed out by the learned senior counsel that even the defacto complainant himself turned hostile giving a total go- by to his earlier version and there is no other material available on record to implicate the petitioner.But where the evidence against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and if some of the accused persons have been acquitted, the remaining accused persons cannot be treated differently on the basis of the same evidence.On perusal of the Judgment of acquittal dated 19.01.1998 it appears that the deceased Balwan Singh met with a homicidal death owing to burn injuries sustained by him has not been disputed by the accused persons.The evidence against the accused persons mainly consists of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, namely, Karan Singh (PW2) and Smt. Asha Rani(PW-5) (Wife of the deceased Balwan Singh) besides the dying declaration (Ex.PW-13/a) of the deceased Balwan Singh.Both the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and so they have been declared hostile by the prosecution.Eliminating the evidence of the said eye- witnesses, there remains the dying declaration (Ex.PW.13/A) of the deceased Balwan Singh, which has been disbelieved by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge.It would, therefore, appear that the accused persons, namely, Jangli Tyagi, Balbir Singh, Anil Kumar Tyagi and Sushil Kumar Tyagi were acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.Thamilendi Vs.On perusal of the Judgment of acquittal dated 19.01.1998, it appears that the deceased-Balwan Singh met with a homicidal death owing to burn injuries sustained by him has not been disputed by the accused persons.The evidence against the accused persons mainly consists of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, namely, Karan Singh (PW-2) and Smt. Asha Rani (PW-5) (Wife of the deceased Balwan singh) besides the dying declaration (Ex.PW-13/A) of the deceased Balwan Singh.Both the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and so they have been declared hostile by the prosecution.Eliminating the evidence of the said eye-witnesses, there remains the dying declaration (Ex.PW.13/A) of the deceased Balwan Singh, which has beenhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 disbelieved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.6.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.The proceedings in P.R.C.No.03 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore District, is hereby quashed.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.22.04.2019 Index:Yes/no Speaking/Non speaking order mpahttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, mpa To1.The Inspector of Police, Kattumannarkoil Police Station, Cuddalore District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.CRL.O.P.No.10507 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.5421 & 5423 of 2019
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
153,179,183
The wheels of criminal justice were set into motion by Deorao (PW1) father of the unfortunate girl by lodging his oral report-Exh.22 on 13.11.2014 with Police Station, Mulchera, Dist.Oral report shows that first informant-Deorao resides at mouja Konsari and working as "Majoor" (Labour) at Bilt Paper Mill, Ashti.He is having two daughters, elder 5 years (victim) taking education in KG-I at Shishu Mandir Convent, Ashti and younger daughter is 9 months.As per the FIR, Deorao's duty at paper mill, Ashti is from 8.00 O'clock in the morning till 5.00 O'clock in the evening.Therefore, daily he used to leave his village Konsari along with his daughter, the victim for dropping her at convent and to attend the::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 ::: 3 apeal309.17.odt duty.From 05.11.2014, his wife Soni (PW2) was residing with her mother at Ashti for sewing class along with two daughters.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::Oral report further states that since intermittently the victim used to reside at the house of her grandmother, she knows appellant-Rahul Shingade who runs a shoe shop and the victim girl used to call him as maternal uncle (Mama).The FIR further recites that on 12.11.2014, when his wife Soni asked the victim to get one handkerchief from the shop of one Deepak Jorgelwar, the victim refused by saying that on 06.11.2014 at 4.00 O'clock when she was playing in front of the house, that time the appellant called her to his shoe shop and when she obliged the appellant, the appellant took her near him.Thereafter, removed his pant, took out his male organ and asked the little girl to have oral sex saying that she will have a milk.It is also stated in the FIR that the appellant asked the girl to lick his male organ.This fact was revealed to the first informant by his wife Soni (PW2).However, though this fact has come to know on 12.11.2014, he got the knowledge in the night and therefore on 13.11.2014, he approached to the police station and lodged the oral report at 10.00 O'clock in the morning.4 apeal309.17.odt After the crime was registered, the investigating officer Durganath Sali (PW6) visited the spot of incident and panchanama was drawn on 13.11.2014 itself.He arrested the appellant under arrest panchanama at Exh.-36, on 13.11.2014 itself.DATED :- 04.12.2018 ORAL JUDGMENTThe present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in POCSO Case No.1/2015 whereby the appellant is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act. However, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years for an offence under Section 376 (2) (i) of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::He sent the victim girl for her medical examination to General Hospital, Gadchiroli by giving a requisition to the Medical Officer, District General Hospital, Gadchiroli.He also collected the Ossification Test report for determination of age of the victim.The appellant was also sent for medical examination under requisition and his medical examination report is at Exh.-The investigating officer also sent the sample and clothes of the victim to the Chemical Analyser.Statement of victim was also recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chamorshi.After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (i) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Appellant denied the charge and claimed for his trial.In order to bring home guilt of the appellant, in all seven witnesses were examined by the::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 ::: 5 apeal309.17.odt prosecution.The prosecution relied on various documents duly proved during the course of trial.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::After a full fledged trial, the Court below passed the impugned judgment.I have heard Mr. S. D. Chande, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. S. Rao, learned A.P.P. for the State.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::He submitted that the Court below has inflicted minimum punishment on the appellant.He therefore submitted that the appeal be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::Now, I shall record my reasons for answering the aforesaid question.Exh.-37 is requisition given by the investigating officer Durganath Sali (PW6) to the Medical Officer, District Hospital Gadchiroli.Accordingly, the victim (PW3) was sent for her medical examination at General Hospital, Gadchiroli.Dr. Parvin Kilnake was attached as Gynecologist with General Hospital, Gadchiroli.His evidence would show that Exh.-37 was received in::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 ::: 8 apeal309.17.odt the hospital along with victim and the victim was also produced in the hospital.As per the evidence of Doctor, age of the victim was 5 years.Evidence of Dr. Kilnake (PW7) shows that consent of the victim's father was obtained.The girl was also examined.Evidence of doctor would show that the history of forcible oral sex was reported to him.Accordingly, he noted the same in Medico- Legal Certificate.According to the doctor, though he could not find any injury on the private part, he noticed congestion over labia minor and labia majora.As per evidence of doctor, it is his opinion that sexual intercourse did not take place.However his evidence shows that he was unable to give any opinion about oral sex.Though, Dr. Kilnake (PW7) was available for cross-examination, defence declined the cross-examination of Doctor.Therefore, notes in Exh.-38 and his evidence that it was reported to him by the girl about oral sex has gone unchallenged.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::According to the learned counsel for the appellant, case of the prosecution is required to be thrown in dustbin for lodging the FIR belatedly.According to him, this delay is fatal and therefore::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 ::: 9 apeal309.17.odt benefit of doubt has to be extended in favour of the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::It is always open for the prosecution to explain the delay at various stages i.e. during the course of inquiry, investigation or during the course of trial.If explanation offered by the prosecution is found to be acceptable and plausible, it is always open for the Court to accept the same and in that behalf, the delay cannot be fatal.Be that as it may.Age of the girl was never in dispute by the appellant either during the course of trial or even before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant did not raise any issue about the age and that the victim::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 ::: 10 apeal309.17.odt is child within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the POCSO Act. The victim girl was thoroughly cross-examined by the counsel for the appellant before the trial Court.From the nature of questions those were put to her by the learned cross-examiner, the Court can notice that most of the questions were very complex questions.It is not expected to put complex questions to a child whose age is below 5 years.Be that as it may.There is nothing in her cross- examination that there was any special reason for the girl (PW3) not to disclose happening to her till 12.11.2014 as disclosed by her to her mother.In the FIR itself, the first informant has stated that the atrocious act at the hands of the appellant upon the victim girl was reported to the mother of the victim on 12.11.2014 and when the first informant reached in the night of 12.11.2014, the said was disclosed to him by the mother Soni (PW2).The first informant has given explanation in the FIR itself that since due to night, he could not immediately approach the police station on 12.11.2014 and on next day on 13.11.2014, matter is reported.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::Clause 3(b) of the said printed FIR shows that the matter was reported to Police::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 ::: 11 apeal309.17.odt Station, Mulchera on 13.11.2014 at 10.00 O'clock.Clause 5 of the printed FIR is in respect of distance and direction of the Police Station from the place of occurrence.If that particular column is properly seen then it shows that Ashti, where the incident has taken place, is 26 km. away from Police Station, Mulchera.This Court cannot forget that the first informant is only a "Majoor" and therefore it is quite possible that due to night, he was unable to travel 26 km. and the matter was reported on 13.11.2014 at police station at 10.00 O'clock in the morning.In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that there is no delay from the date and time of receipt of the information by the first informant and delay is properly explained in the FIR itself.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that there is no eye witness account in the prosecution case is also required to be rejected since the nature of offence, which the appellant has committed, are always done if not in darkness but not within the public view.It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the shop where the incident has occurred, is::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 ::: 12 apeal309.17.odt situated on the main road and where various vehicles are parked, including public transport vehicles.Perusal of the said clearly reveals that the spot of incident is away, about 30 ft.from the main road.The relevant recitals in the spot panchanama in vernacular are reproduced hereinbelow.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::"सदरचच घटननसथळ पनहतन आलनपलल तच चचदपपर जनणनऱयन ममखय डनचबरल ररडपनसपन ३० फपट अचतरनवर आहच.सनदर घटननसथळ शलमतल मचदन समरश च खमटचमनटच रन.आषल यनचचच दक म नन चनळलतलल असपन तयन चनळलमधयच आररपल ननव रनहह ल रनजकममनर शशचगनडच यनचच 'जगदलश' बपट हनऊस यन ननवननच चपपल जमतयनचच दक म नन एकन ससममट शवटनचचयन सललबचयन खरललमधयच आहच."(Looking to the aforesaid place of occurrence, it is at a distance of 30 ft. from main road of Alapalli to Chandrapur.Aforesaid spot of incident is a shop situated in chawl of Smt. Manda Suresh Khutemate, r/o Ashti and it is a chappal-shoe shop by name 'Jagdish Boot House', belonging to accused Rahul Rajkumar Shingade.This shop is situated in a room constructed in bricks and cement slab.) (Free Translation) From the aforesaid, it is clear that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the shop is situated at main road, is devoid of any substance and cannot be accepted.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::According to the learned counsel for the appellant, without there being permission obtained from the Court, the evidence of the victim was recorded in question-answer form and therefore the evidence is required to be discarded.I am really unable to understand this particular submission.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::To very specific question that what Rahul mama has done, the victim has replied as under,::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 ::: 15 apeal309.17.odt "He has put his urinary organ in my mouth and asked to suck like milk."::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::This type of act is not an act of any normal person but this shows the pervert mind and attitude of the appellant towards the girls, especially the tender aged girl and that also shows that he has a scant respect for any human relationships.The victim has also stated this heinous act on the part of the appellant as done in his own shop.To question no.23, she has specifically stated that since nobody has inquired with her, she has not disclosed the fact to anybody.The question will be then how the heinous act came into light.Evidence of Soni (PW2) who is mother of the victim, asked the victim to bring handkerchief from the shop of Dipak Jorgelwar and she refused.That time Soni was breast-feeding her 9 month old daughter.On noticing the said, as per the evidence::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 ::: 16 apeal309.17.odt of Soni, the victim realised that the appellant (Rahul mama) has done the same thing to her and narrated the incident.Therefore, the appellant has completed offence of rape as contained in Section::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 ::: 17 apeal309.17.odt 375 of the IPC and also done the act of penetrative sexual assault on the child as contemplated in the POCSO Act.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::Before entering into the witness box and before stating all the facts, the Court observed in the preceding paragraph of this judgment that the victim was referred to Dr. Kilnake (PW7) for her examination and Exh.-38 the medico-legal certificate has clear cut recitals about disclosure on the part of the victim to state the Doctor about the oral sex.Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna (supra).According to him, no statement as contemplated under Section::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 ::: 18 apeal309.17.odt 164 of the Cr.P.C. is recorded and the said is not on record.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::In that behalf, I would like to observe here that in the examination-in-chief the investigating officer has stated as under."Later the statement of the victim was recorded before the J.M.F.C., Chamorshi."No doubt true that the said statement is not available on the record.However, I am not going to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that for non availability of statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the child, the entire trial vitiates.The reason is that it is not cross-examination on the part of the appellant to the investigating officer since the statement of the girl which was later recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chamorshi was in favour of the appellant, therefore, willfully the said statement is withheld and/or suppressed by the prosecution.Further, submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is to be rejected because if any lapse is committed on the part of the investigating officer, for that justice cannot be made victim.Of course, it was the duty of the investigating officer to place the said statement before the Court.However, neither the victim nor her::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 ::: 19 apeal309.17.odt father, who was a labour, was having any control or influence on the investigating officer.They are rustic villagers.In that view of the matter, the reliance placed by the learned counsel in the matter of State of Karnataka, supra is highly misplaced.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::Another submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Chemical Analyser's reports are not supporting the prosecution inasmuch as according to him, no blood and/or semen stains were found on the clothes of the appellant as well as the victim.The said cannot be expected at all in view of the fact that::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 ::: 20 apeal309.17.odt it was never the claim of the victim that the appellant discharged anything either in her private part or in her clothes.Therefore, the said submission of the appellant is also required to be rejected.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::Here, I would like to mention that the appellant has examined two persons as defence witnesses namely; Anil Khobragade (DW1) and Dushyant Mandal (DW2).However, their evidence is of no value nor it supports the appellant.Another submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that he is falsely implicated in the matter since the room in which he runs his shop, belongs to the grandmother of the child and there is a dispute for vacation of the said room.In my view, said defence is taken only for the purpose of defence.When the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., to question no.56, he has answered as under:"I do not know the victim and her parents.Other witnesses are their relatives.There was dispute over shop between my father and grandmother of victim.Her grandmother said that if premises of the shop is given to her they would tell the truth.As I refused to accept that, the witnesses deposed against me."::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::21 apeal309.17.odt Except this, there is no material available on record to show that at any point of time, grandmother of the victim asked vacation of the premises.Before parting with the judgment, I would like to observe that it is a fit case wherein the Police Department shall take appropriate steps against Durganath Sali (PW6) Police Sub Inspector, the investigating officer who has not given proper attention to the matter by not placing the statement on record by::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 ::: 22 apeal309.17.odt Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chamorshi before Court of law.Therefore, Director General of Police, Maharashtra State shall take appropriate steps in the matter against Durganath Sali, who was attached to Police Station, Mulchera as Police Sub Inspector on 13.11.2014 so as to see that in future neither him nor any police officers commits such lapses which may give leverage in the hands of the persons like the appellant to make a submission that for non filing of the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the entire trial is vitiated and shall place the report before this Court in respect of the steps taken by the said authority.::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::Conspectus of the aforesaid discussion leads me to pass the following order.17.06.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in POCSO Case No.1/2015 is confirmed.JUDGE kahale::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:49:52 :::
['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
153,195,542
His first application for the same relief had been dismissed vide order dated 01.11.2017 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos.17524/2017 and 18441 with liberty to renew the prayer at a later stage of the trial.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the health status of the petitioner as also his age and the fact of the case that he has been in custody since 26.09.2017, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Pannalal 2 Mishra, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.60,000/- with a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge sp/-Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 2018.03.13 04:58:54 -07'00'
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
153,197,574
waives notice for Respondent-State.Perusal of FIR would show that as regards applicant Nos.3 and 5 are concerned, it is stated that they were present at the place of occurrence and they have instigated.Learned Advocate for the applicants further submits that the FIR, in which the applicants have been made as accused, is outcome of::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2020 09:03:54 ::: (2) the cross-complaint.CR No.114/2020 was registered with Aundha Nagnath Police Station, District Hingoli for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC at the behest of the FIR lodged by accused No.5 and thereafter after three days, i.e. belatedly, the present FIR came to be lodged.There is dispute in respect of the property between the parties and, therefore, unnecessarily the entire family has been roped.As aforesaid, so far as applicant Nos. 3VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.) BDV::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2020 09:03:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2020 09:03:54 :::
['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
153,197,924
On behalf of the applicants, this petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants as they are under apprehension of their arrest in connection of Crime No. 14/10 registered at Police Station AJK Bhopal for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 427 of I.P.C. and also under Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter in short 'the Act').Applicants' counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the impugned order placed on the record so also by referring the copy of FIR of Crime No.527/10, registered at Kamla Nagar, Police Station Bhopal, argued that long before, the complainant Dalchand ,being their servant was working as Watchman at the disputed place belonging to them but due to some reasons, his services were terminated and at his place another Watchman Ghuman Singh was posted.Thereafter, the aforesaid complainant created some obstruction and committed some offending act, then the aforesaid Crime No.527/10 was registered at the instance of Ghuman Singh against the complainant and some other persons and after holding the investigation in such case, Dalchand and other persons have been charge-sheeted.Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the case diary as well as the impugned order so also the aforesaid FIR referred by the senior counsel.It is further directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand) by each of the applicants along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/Investigating Officer, the applicants N.M. Purushvani and Keshav Purushvani shall be released on anticipatory bail with a further direction to appear before the trial Court in which the charge-sheet is pending for consideration either for committing the matter or in the Special Court where the matter is pending for trial.Such release shall be subject to terms and conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge Pb
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
153,201,217
The deceased in this case was one Dhasarathan.P.W.1 is the father of the deceased.All the three accused also belong to the same village.For quite some time, there was a dispute between the two families in respect of irrigation right.Three years prior to the occurrence in the instant case, when the deceased was standing in the bus stop, one Andi, Manivel, Madhu and Ramasamy had attacked him.In this regard, a complaint was made to the Police Station and a case was registered.The said case was under trial before the Court.Thereafter, there was a compromise reached between the two parties and therefore, the case ended in acquittal.However, the family of the accused developed grudge against the family of the deceased.This is stated to be the motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased.On 11.02.2010, the deceased was in his house.P.Ws.1 to 3 were with him.They were inside the house watching television.By about 9.00 p.m., the deceased went to bathroom.The bathroom is on the western side of the house.Immediately, thereafter, P.Ws.1 to 4 heard a bang indicating a blast.P.W.1 rushed out of the house.P.Ws.2 to 4 also rushed out.At that time, all the four found the deceased sitting just at the entrance of the house.There were injuries on the front side as well as back side of the body of the deceased.He was profusely bleeding.At that time, P.W.1 noticed these three accused running away from the place of occurrence.P.W.1 also noticed the first accused having a gun in his hand.The deceased died within a few minutes.Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and made a complaint in respect of the same.P.W.19, the then Sub Inspector of Police at Thammampatti Police Station received a complaint under Ex.Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.21, the then Inspector of Police proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch showing the presence of P.W.5 and another witness.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased.Thereafter, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements.P18 is the Inquest Report.Then, he recovered a blood stained earth and other material objects from the place of occurrence.No tatooing seen over entry wounds.All the above injuries are antemortem in nature."P10 is the post-mortem certificate.He found two pellets in the body of the deceased.He removed the same [vide M.O.10].Continuing the investigation, P.W.21 examined a few more witnesses and recorded their statements.On 18.02.2010, at 6.00 a.m. at Sembarakkai village, P.W.21 arrested all the three accused in the presence of P.W.16 and another witness.On such arrest, they gave voluntary confessions one after the other.P.W.21 recorded the same.In the said confession, the first accused had disclosed the place where he had hidden the gun and the ammunitions.In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.21 and the witnesses to Kurangu Kaadu and from a hide out, he produced the gun [M.O.7] and three ammunitions [M.O.8].P.W.21 recovered the same in the presence of witnesses.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.59 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Salem.The first accused stood charged for offences under Sections 302 IPC and 25(1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act and the accused 2 and 3 stood charged for offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and 25(1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act r/w 34 IPC.By judgment dated 30.11.2011, the trial Court convicted A1 under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1B) (a) of the Indian Arms Act; A2 and A3 under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC.The trial Court sentenced the first appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default six months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. The trial Court sentenced accused 2 and 3 to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.The trial Court acquitted the appellants 2 and 3 from the charge under Section 25(1B)(a) r/w 34 IPC.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellants are before this Court with this appeal.P1 at 1.00 a.m. on 12.02.2010 and registered a case in Cr.He then forwarded the body for post-mortem.Panneer Selvam, conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased on 12.02.2010 at 4.55 p.m. He found the following injuries:"INJURIES:An oval shaped punctured wound (entry wound) measuring 1.5 x 1.25 cms x cavity deep was seen over back of left chest 1 cm below and medial to inferior angle of left scapula and 38 cms below left scapular acromian process and enters into left pleural cavity.O/D the tract runs obliquely downwards and medially piercing the left 8th intercostal muscle, nerve and blood vessel and diaphragm, left lung base measuring 1.5 cm diameter and thro and thro.Left thoracic cavity contained 500 ml of fluid blood and clots and on further dissection an exit wound measuring 1.75 x 1.5 cm seen as punctured wound over right side of epigastric region - 25 cm below the level of clavicle bone.2.An oval punctured wound of 1.5 x 1.25 cm x cavity deep (entry wound) seen over left lumbar region at L1 vertebral level.O/D the wound pierces the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves and exits through right side of epigastric region - 29 cms below the level of clavicle bone - 4 cms below the previous exit wound and measures 1.75 x 1.5 cms.3.An oval punctured entry wound over the upper part of the mid left gluteal region measuring 1.5 x 1.25 cm x cavity deep and it is situated 4.5 cms below the previous injury.The wound pierces the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves and the iron ball rests in the L5 lumbar vertebra ..(not recovered)4.An oval punctured entry would over back of lower 3rd of left forearm measuring 1.5 x 1.25 cms x bone deep and it is situated 4 cms above left wrist, the iron ball runs upward and medially and rests in the deep fascial place ..(recovered)All the above entry would have inverted lacerated margins and exit wounds have everted margins.On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the Inquest Report and handed over the material objects also to the Court.He made a request to the Court to forward the material objects for examination.P.W.11 examined the gun and opined that it was in working condition and the same would have been recently used for shooting.P.W.10 Mr.Ravichandran, examined the other material objects and found that the blood stains on M.Os.1 to 6, viz., the dress materials of the deceased and blood stained earth taken from the place of occurrence, are of human blood.On completing investigation, P.W.1 laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the above charges as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 21 witnesses were examined and 23 documents were exhibited, besides 10 material objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 have stated that, on hearing the noise, when they rushed to the place of occurrence, they found the deceased sitting with injuries.P.W.1 alone has stated about the fact that he saw the three accused running away from the place of occurrence and at that time, the first accused was having a gun in his hand.P.W.5 has spoken about the Observation Mahazar prepared at the place of occurrence and the recovery of material objects like blood stained earth and sample earth.P.Ws.6 and 7 have stated that they are closely related to the deceased and they found the accused at the time of occurrence with a gun and when they enquired, the first accused had told them that he had shot a rabbit and that is why he was having a weapon with him.P.W.11-the Ballistic Expert, has spoken about his opinion regarding gun.P.W.10 has spoken to the fact that there were blood stains on the dress materials of the deceased.P.W.12 has spoken about the photographs taken at the place of occurrence.P.Ws.13 and 14 have spoken about the motive.P.W.15 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.19 has spoken about the registration of the case and P.W.21 has spoken about the investigation.P.W.18 has spoken about the registration of the earlier case, which is the motive case.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.On their side, they have marked 6 documents, Exs.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted all the three accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.This is a case based on circumstantial evidence.The above said occurrence was at 9.15 p.m. on 11.02.2010 on the backside of the house.P.Ws.1 to 4 heard the bang and immediately, they rushed to the place of occurrence.P.Ws.2 to 4 did not see the assailants there.They found only the deceased sitting with injuries.They have stated that, immediately thereafter, the deceased breathed his last.P.W.1 alone has stated that, at that point of time, he found these three accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence.He has further stated that, at that time, he found the first accused holding the gun.The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station, as seen from Ex.P13, is 6 kms.Thus, there was sufficient time for P.W.1 to cool down.When he made the complaint, he did not mention these accused at all as the assailants, instead, he mentioned the names of one Andi, Madhu and Ramasamy as the suspected assailants.But, he has made a completely contrary statement in Ex.P1 stating that, he had suspicion only against one Andi, Madhu and Ramasamy as the assailants.This would go to clearly establish that, P.W.1 would not have seen these three accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence at all.Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 that these three accused were found fleeing away from the scene of occurrence, is only liable to be rejected.Then comes the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7. P.W.6 is the brother of P.W.2 and P.W.7 is his friend.According to these two witnesses, they hail from a different village.They came to the occurrence village and when they were returning at about 8.30 p.m., they heard the bang of a shooting.They stopped at that place on hearing the same.At that time, they found the first accused coming towards them with a gun in his hand.The accused 2 and 3 also accompanied them.When they enquired, they told him that they had shot a rabbit.Thus, according to these two witnesses, they found these three accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence.The deceased was none else than his brother-in-law.It is not as though after the above incident, he had gone to his village.The very fact that he has mentioned the names of three different persons in Ex.P1 would go to show that, P.Ws.6 and 7 would not have seen these two accused at all and they have been only planted by the prosecution purposely.P.W.16 has stated that on the disclosure statement made by the first accused, M.Os.7 and 8 were recovered from a hide out.This fact has been spoken to by P.W.21 also.We do not find any reason to reject this part of the evidence.Therefore, it is crystal clear that the first accused alone was found in possession of M.Os.7 and 8 on the date of arrest.But, unfortunately, the prosecution has failed to do so.P.W.1, the Ballistic Expert has only stated that M.O.7 was in working condition.He has also stated that the same would have been used recently for shooting.But, there is no evidence that, actually, M.O.10 was shot from M.O.7, the gun.The prosecution has also failed to connect M.O.7 which was found in the possession of the accused with the crime.Apart from that, there is no other evidence available against the accused.Therefore, they are entitled to acquittal from the charge under Sections 302 IPC as well as 302 r/w 34 IPC.So far as the first accused is concerned, as we have already concluded that he was found in possession of M.Os.7 and 8, he is liable to be punished under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. To that extent, the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the first accused deserves to be confirmed.Turning to the quantum of punishment, the trial Court has imposed only a very reasonable quantum for the said offence, which also does not require any interference.Therefore, we are inclined to confirm the sentence imposed on the first appellant for the offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act, alone.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:(1) The conviction and sentence imposed on the first appellant/first accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge.The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to him for this charge.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
153,206,509
1 .2018 b.CRM No. 5734 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 3.8.2018 in connection with Khejuri Police Station Case No. 18/2018, dated 25.1.2018 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Tapan Kumar Jana ... Petitioner Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya Mr. R. S. Chatterjee Mr. Anindya Sundar Das Mr. Debarshi Mondal .. for the petitioner Mr. Binoy Panda Mr. Subham Bhakat ..for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Khejuri Police Station Case No. 18/2018, dated 25.1.2018 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code The primary charge is under Section 420 of the Penal Code for the petitioner having allegedly transferred an immovable property in favour of his son at a time when such property stood mortgaged to the Bank against credit facilities obtained by the petitioner.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
153,206,630
/120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Suryanarayana Raju Sagiraju & Anr.... ... petitioners Mr. Amir Safique Molla ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Mr. Rudradipta Nandy ... ... for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Burrabazar P.S. Case No. 73 of 2018 dated 08.03.2018 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.The State complains that the petitioners did not comply with the notice issued under Section 41A of the Code.The charge against the petitioners is of not making payments against goods or services received.From the case diary produced by the State it appears that there are transactions between the petitioners' company and the complainant's organization for a substantial period.Indeed, the claims appear to be purely civil in nature.Since the notice under Section 41A of the Code was issued, the petitioners should make every endeavour to meet the investigating officer within a week from date.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.Certified copies of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
153,209,972
This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 656/15 registered at Police Station Waidhen, Distt.Singrauli for commission of alleged the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 471/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated for commission of alleged offence.He submits that the applicant himself has deposited Rs.48,000/- with Sarva Mangla Properties India Limited Korba and he was not at all financially connected with the said company either in the capacity of owner, partner or agent.On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was serving in the Cooperative Central Bank Sidhi, Distt.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State has opposed the application.Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the evidence collected in the case diary, I am inclined to allow the application for grant of bail.Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is allowed.In the circumstances, the application is allowed.On applicant's furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Weadhan for securing his presence before that Court on all the dates of hearing to be fixed in this regard during trial, applicant be released on bail.The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.as per rules.(SHANTANU KEMKAR)
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
153,212
i) That one Ashalata Dattatraya Bhoskar (Complainant) of Panvel has two sons by names Pradeep and Dinesh.Smt. Ashalata is staying with her son Dinesh and his wife Sonal.As Pradeep got married to Respondent No. 4 Smt. Swati, they were staying separately at Disha Co-operative Society, Plot No. 59-62, B Wing, 3rd Floor, Room No. 302 New Panvel.Pradeep and Swati have a daughter by name Smruti.ii) There were some differences of opinion between the deceased Pradeep and Swati (Respondent No. 4) on the point as to in which school Smruti should be admitted for her education.That on 16.5.2004, Respondent No. 2 & 3 went to the house of deceased Pradeep and took Respondent No. 4 and Miss Smruti with them.On the same day it was proposed to hold a meeting regarding admission of Smruti in the school.Said meeting was attended on behalf of Respondent No. 4 by her sister the Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 3, and others.After Pradeep and his mother went to the house of Respondent No. 1 Respondent No. 2 closed the doors and the Respondent No. 2 and 3 started abusing the deceased Pradeep and his mother i.e. the complainant.Respondent No. 1 started beating Pradeep.Complainant intervened and told the Respondent No. 1 not to beat Pradeep as Pradeep was operated six months back on his backbone.ORDER A.M. Khanwilkar, J.This application is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag, on 26th July 2004 in respect of offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Panvel Town Police Station being CR.The Respondents have been named as accused responsible for the death of Pradeep Dattatraya Bhoskar.The Respondents are closely related to the deceased.Respondent No. 3 is the mother of Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 1 is the husband of Respondent No. 2 (brother-in-law of Respondent No. 4).iv) That as soon as the complainant told the Respondents as aforesaid the Respondent No. 1 and 2 rushed towards the complainant Ashalata.The Respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 started abusing the complainant Ashalata in the name of her married daughter Manisha Jadhav.It was said that they would bring Manisha to Panvel and compel her to work as prostitute.There was no discussion regarding the admission of Smruti and the complainant and Pradeep came back to their house.Thereafter, it is alleged that Respondent No. 4 wrote a letter amongst other demanding that the house situated at Sector No. 9 of New Panvel should be transferred in her name.Besides, the Respondent No. 4 asked her husband (Pradeep) to assure that no other family member except him should visit their house.v) That on 10/6/2004 deceased Pradeep received a phone call from Respondent No. 4 wherein the Respondent No. 4 told Pradeep that she would not come back to his house even her feet are touched by any person from his family and further Respondent No. 4 abused Pradeep and suggested him to go and die.vi) That on 11/6/2004, it was found that Pradeep has committed suicide by hanging himself to the ceiling fan in his flat.The writing of Pradeep which was found in the said flat discloses that the Respondents are rich persons and the Respondent No. 1 is a goonda by nature and even if complaint is made to the police no purpose would be served.That the said chit was seized from the scene of offence.That the said suicide note was a carbon copy and the original writing till date could not be recovered and the Investigating Agency is suspecting that the said writing is with the Respondents.The mother of deceased Pradeep lodged complaint with the police on 13th June 2004, which is registered as CR.Immediately on the next day, the Respondents moved the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail.The Sessions Court in its order mainly took the view that custodial interrogation of the Respondents was not necessary as relevant material, which would indicate complicity of the Respondents was already seized by the Police.He further observed that there are no criminal antecedents against the Respondents.Moreover, they are permanent residents of New Panvel.Lastly, the learned Judge observed that insofar as the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the Respondents tampering the prosecution evidence is concerned, that can be taken care of by imposing strict conditions.These are the only reasons which have weighed with the learned Judge to pass the following order, which is impugned in this application."The order of interim anticipatory bail granted on 14/6/2004 is hereby confirmed.The Applicants are directed to report to Panvel Town Police Station twice in a week i.e. on every Monday and Thursday between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. till charge sheet is filed.The applicants are directed not to make any inducement, threats or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer."In addition, it is asserted that the Respondents have violated the conditions on which anticipatory bail was granted in their favour.Neither they have reported to the concerned police station at any point of time after the order was passed, though that was one of the conditions, nor have they abided by the condition to dissuade the prosecution witnesses from giving evidence.Specific instance has been mentioned in the application and letter addressed by the Respondent No. 1 to one Ramchandra Balu Urankar has been placed on record.It is the case of the prosecution that Respondent No. 1 is a politically influential person in the area and taking advantage of that position, he is trying to influence the prosecution witnesses.After notice of this application was served on the Respondents, it is now stated on affidavit on behalf of the State that thereafter the Respondents have tried to further influence the prosecution witnesses.In fact, about 7 false complaints have been registered against the prosecution witnesses.The Respondents have justified the order passed by the lower Court on merits.According to them, all relevant factors have been taken into account by the learned Judge in allowing the application for anticipatory bail, for the reasons recorded in the order.Besides, reply has been filed denying that they have failed to comply with the conditions imposed in the order passed by the lower Court.According to them, they were attending the concerned Police Station, but no record has been maintained in the police station and taking advantage of that position, false allegations are made about non-compliance of the condition.It is the case of the Respondents that they have been regularly visiting the concerned police station, but they were not aware that they were required to maintain diary to take acknowledgement of the concerned police officer relating to the visits made by them.To support the fact that the Respondents were not only visiting the police station in compliance of the order passed by the lower Court, but the Respondent No. 1 was required to visit police station also in respect other cases, reliance is placed on document at Exhibit R-2 (page 69) dated 30th June 2004 which pertains to criminal complaint lodged in respect of Rahul Dipak Bhende.Besides, it is contended that the residence of the Respondents is just near the Police Station, about 200 ft. away from the police station.The fact that the Respondents have not visited the police station inspite of the order, is not only stated on affidavit by the Sub-Inspector of Police of the concerned police station, but also supported by the entries in the police case diary produced on record.Whereas, the stand of the Respondents is only on the basis of an unsubstantiated statement on oath.The Respondents are taking excuse of their ignorance regarding requirement to maintain diary regarding the visits made by them to the police station.That excuse cannot be accepted.Rather only to be stated to be rejected.The fact that the Respondents have not attended the concerned police station in terms of the order by itself can be a ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail.To get over this position, the Respondents contend that their residence is just near the police station.Because of the order, the Respondents were obliged to report to the police station.That has not happened in the present case.There is no reason why the stand of the State, which is supported on affidavit and taken by an independent person of the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, ought not to be accepted.Counsel for the Respondents then vehemently contended that the Respondent No. was visiting police station in connection with other offence registered with that police station.Reliance was placed on the document at page 69 Exhibit R-2 to support this stand.Accordingly, the argument that the Respondents have complied with the condition requiring them to attend the concerned police station will have to be answered against the Respondents and that by itself can be a ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail operating in favour of the Respondents.Besides, I find substance in the allegation made on behalf of the prosecution that the Respondents have attempted to influence the prosecution witnesses.They have, in their affidavits filed before this Court, also made false accusation against the police constable, so as to create confusion and seek sympathy of this Court.Hence, this application succeeds.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
36,578,622
Amol was found dead by ad hanging himself in the ceiling fan.His body was taken to the hospital, M where he was declared dead.The postmortem report reveals that he died due to asphyxia, as a result ante mortem hanging.Ligature of material was found on his neck.Inquest was made.Subsequently, it rt was found that the deceased-Amol was working as a builder.The ou accused persons advanced certain money to the deceased, because of which he had agreed to sell the House No.502 to the petitioners.It is also claimed that the brother-in-law of the deceased Atul Agnibhoz has stated that the deceased committed suicide for other reasons.The prosecution story also indicates that petitioner No.1 and his daughter had gone to the house of the deceased for return of money.On behalf of the respondent/State the petition is vehemently opposed and it was contended that there dispute between the petitioners and the deceased.The petitioners had talked with the sh deceased for several times.The call details indicate so.It is also e contended that the deceased had given a cheque to the petitioner No.1 ad in lieu of the loan.Last year he invested Rs.25 lacs in Multi.Amol had agreed to sell the land to Vikash Agrawal.It was decided to pay Rs.20 lacs by cheque and Rs.10 lacs by cash at the time of registration.This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal sh Procedure has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of e this Court and to quash the charge-sheet of Crime No.281/2016 ad registered at Police Station, Kamla Nagar, Bhopal for offence an underC Because of their harassment, the deceased committed suicide.On the h basis of this, an FIR at Crime No.281/2016 for offence under section ig 306 of I.P.C. was registered against the petitioners.Charge-sheet has H been filed before the competent court and after committal, the same is pending before 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal for trial.On behalf of the petitioner, it is claimed that the petitioners are innocent.The have been falsely implicated.The deceased died after three days.There was no connection of death of the deceased with the petitioners.Therefore, the entire charge-sheet was liable to be quashed.It is also claimed that the wife and daughter of the petitioner No.1 had gone to the house of the deceased.The sale deed was also ad executed on 24.4.2016 in the name of the petitioners.The wife and M daughter of petitioner no.1 told them that registration charges of the house will be borne by the deceased.On 26.4.2016, the petitioner of No.2 called him and told that he has placed the cheque for encashment.Because of this harassment the deceased died.On behalf rt of the petitioners it is claimed that the statement of Atul Agnihoz ou attains importance because Amol Vaidya was the Manager of I-Phone C Recorders.He was also the Executive Director.Two of his partners h are Jitendra Mamtani and Jyoti Tiwari.In 2014 Jyoti Tiwari left the ig company.Amol Agnibhoz then switched to make pictures.Amol Agnibhoz used to visit Mumbai off and on by road and by flight.Jyoti Tiwari had also gone to Mumbai alongwith the deceased.There were 17 flats in the building owned by the deceased.Jitendra Mamtani and deceased had constructed the same.
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
36,582,459
"4.I am aware that Thiru Nandhakumar is in remand in H6 R.K. Nagar Police Station Cr.No.403/2019, H1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr.No.272/2019, H4 Korukkupet Police Station Cr.Nos.203/2019 and 207/2019 and lodged at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.Page 4 of 76.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No. BCDFGISSSV No.252/2019 dated 15.05.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside.The detenu, S.Nandhakumar, S/o.Page 6 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1099 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.Page 6 of 7(ssm) H.C.P. No. 1099 of 2019 16.08.2019 Page 7 of 7http://www.judis.nic.inPage 7 of 7The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.Page 2 of 74.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:He has moved bail applications for H4 Korukkupet Police Station Cr.Nos.203/2019 and 207/2019 before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.Nos.9199/2019 and 9196/2019 respectively and both the bail applications are pending.The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Boopathy are taking action to take him on bail in H6 R.K.Nagar Police Station Cr.No.403/2019 and H1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr.No.272/2019 by filing bail application before the appropriate Court.In a case Page 3 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1099 of 2019 registered u/s 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 & 506(ii) IPC in M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Cr.No.17/2019, bail was granted by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur in Crl.Hence I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in H4 Korukkupet Police Station Cr.Nos.203/2019 and 207/2019 and also there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in H6 R.K. Nagar Police Station Cr.No.403/2019 and H1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr.Page 3 of 7No.17/2019 and bail was granted by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.817/2019 and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the adverse cases and ground case and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The similar case relied on by the authority was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), Page 4 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1099 of 2019 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 & 506(ii) IPC whereas the offences involved in the adverse cases and ground case are under Sections 341, 294(b), 394, 397 and 506(ii) IPC; 341, 294(b), 324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC; 147, 323, 294(b), 392 and 506(ii) IPC and 147, 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.Further, the detaining authority has observed that the detenu has not filed bail applications in respect of the first and third adverse cases but the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail in those cases.There is no material to substantiate the same.Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in not considering the similar case for arriving at subjective satisfaction.Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.Sekar, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.(M.M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 16.08.2019 Page 5 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1099 of 2019 Index : Yes / No mmi/ssm ToPage 5 of 73.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.and M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
36,583,082
Kanpur Nagar, in February, 2003 according to the Hindu rites and gave sufficient dowry at the time of marriage.But as soon as the informant's daughter Vijay Laxmi came to the house of her in-laws, Rs.2,00,000/- was demanded towards dowry.She was maltreated and cruelty was perpetrated on her.The informant side pacified and reconciled the in-laws of his daughter but nothing fruitful came out.The informant was under impression that things will be settled soon.However, it never happened.On 04.08.2009, the father of the appellant (Kanhaiya Lal) telephonically informed the informant that her daughter has set herself ablazed by pouring kerosene oil on her.After receiving this information, the informant came to Hallet Hospital, at Kanpur Nagar where he found his daughter dead in emergency room and there was deep burn all over her body.In the concluding part of the first information report, it was described that the death was caused on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.Request was made for lodging the report and taking appropriate action.On the basis of entries so made in the check F.I.R., a case was registered against the appellant in the relevant G.D. at serial no.39 on 04.08.2009 at 06:30 p.m. at the aforesaid Case Crime Number at Police Station Rail Bazar, under aforesaid Sections of I.P.C. and Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellant.The inquest of the deceased Vijay Laxmi was held by Indrasan Singh, PW-8, Additional City Magistrate-II, Kanpur Nagar.In the opinion of the inquest witnesses and the Investigating Officer, it was suggested that post mortem of the dead body of Vijay Laxmi be ensured in order to ascertain real cause of death.Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination in the mortuary at Kanpur Nagar where post mortem examination on the cadaver of the deceased Vijay Laxmi was done by Dr. R.P. Gupta, PW-3 on 05.08.2009 at 01:00 p.m. wherein he noted the following ante mortem burn injury:Superficial to deep burn all over body sparing part of right side.Line of redness seen.By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.03.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Kanpur Nagar, in Sessions Trial No.1109 of 2009, State of U.P. Vs.Virendra Kumar Gupta and others, arising out of Case Crime No.368 of 2009, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Rail Bazar, District- Kanpur Nagar, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.5,000/- under Section 498A IPC, in default of payment of fine, he will have to suffer addition three months rigorous imprisonment, ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.5,000/- under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in default of payment of fine, he will have to suffer additional three months rigorous imprisonment.Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA assisted by Sri Rajeev Kumar Rai, brief holder for the State and perused the record of this appeal.Crux of event leading to the conviction of the appellant Virendra Kumar Gupta as unfolded by the first information report reflects that the informant Pyare Lal Gupta lodged the written report against the appellant and three others of his family members alleging therein fact that the informant got wedded his daughter Vijay Laxmi with the appellant Virendra Kumar Gupta, resident of 318, Rail Bazar, Cantt.Carbon particles in trachea seen.In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was due to shock as a result of extensive ante mortem burn injury.In the meanwhile, the investigation continued.The Investigating Officer PW-7 in the process recorded statement of various persons including the informant and Constable who made relevant entry in the Check FIR and general diary.Pursuant thereto committal proceeding took place and after compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the court of Sessions from where it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Kanpur Nagar, for conduction of trial and disposal of the case, after numbering it as Sessions Trial No.1109 of 2009 State Vs.Virendra Kumar Gupta and others.Learned trial Judge heard the prosecution and the appellant on point of charge and was prima-facie satisfied with the case against the appellant, accordingly, framed charges under Sections 498A/34, 304B/34 IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant who abjured charges and claimed to be tried.In turn, the prosecution was required to adduce its testimony in support of the charge brought against the appellant to prove his guilt, whereupon the prosecution produced the following witnesses whose reference is being sketched hereinbelow.Pyare Lal PW-1 is the informant and the father of the deceased Vijay Laxmi and he has lodged the written report.Gulabi Devi PW-2 is mother of the deceased.Dr. R.P. Gupta PW-3 has conducted post mortem examination on the cadaver of the deceased.Indrasan Singh PW-4 is Additional City Magistrate-II, Kanpur Nagar who got prepared inquest report and other relevant papers for sending the dead body for post mortem examination.Manoj Kumar Gupta PW-6 is brother of the deceased.Dharmendra Singh PW-7 is the first Investigating Officer of this case.Ravi Shanker Chhavi PW-8 is subsequent Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet against the appellant.After that much, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has claimed to have been absent from his house and was participating in some bid taking place at Ursula Hospital at Kanpur Nagar.Thereafter the appellant himself appeared as witness before the trial court and got examined as DW-1 wherein also he has claimed to have been absent on the spot when his wife sustained burn injury.Kanhaiya Lal Gupta DW-2 has detailed with aspect of separate living of the appellant at the time of occurrence.Except as above, no other testimony, whatsoever, has been adduced by the defence, therefore, evidence for the defence was also closed and the case was posted for arguments.The case was heard on merits whereby the learned trial Judge acquitted all other accused except the appellant and convicted him under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.5,000/- under Section 498A IPC, in default of payment of fine, he will have to suffer addition three months rigorous imprisonment, ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.5,000/- under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in default of payment of fine, he will have to suffer additional three months rigorous imprisonment which eventually gave rise to this appeal.Hence, this appeal.At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case, peculiarity of family background and existing position of the appellant is in precarious condition that two minor children; one daughter and one son are residing with the elder brother of the appellant whose maintenance problem has been arising from the time when the appellant was sent to jail.The case of appellant should be considered on the point of quantum of sentence awarded by the trial court.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after conviction, he has nothing to state on merits of charges proved against the appellant, but insofar as the point of quantum of sentence is concerned, one thing is obvious and admitted to the prosecution that the mitigating circumstances would have served as measure of lesser punishment before the trial court but the trial court overlooked the very important aspect of the trial and it recorded harsh punishment under circumstances which was not justified, for example the appellant's minor children one daughter aged about 11 years for the time being and similarly one son aged below 10 years, were left without protection of their father.Both daughter and son are presently residing with the mother and father of the appellant right from the day of the alleged incident and the maternal grandfather and mother and maternal uncle of his children have not even asked for the custody of both the children from the day of the incident.These minor children have been deprived of love and affection of their father.No worthy purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behind the bar.It is admitted fact that in this case, the deceased was taken to the hospital and given treatment not by the informant side but by the appellant side - his father and elder brother.The appellant was not present at that point of time in the house but he later on swarmed on the spot and provided the required need.The appellant is around 36-37 years of age for the time being and in case he is kept in confinement then the future and interest of his two children will be jeopardized.It is true that psychological as well as physical personality of the two minor children, in absence of the father will be detrimental to their natural development as human beings.All these particular aspects were not considered by the court below while awarding sentence to the appellant otherwise it was a case where sentence lesser than minimum would have been awarded to the appellant by the trial court.This much of sentence should be treated to be the total sentence for the offence proved against him and the appellant under the aforesaid particular circumstances may be allowed to go to home for taking proper care of his two minor children.Dt. 11.09.2017 rkg
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
36,584,833
Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA today which is taken on record.He has been falsely implicated.The girl was recovered after a considerable delay.The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 02.07.2019 in which she has stated that she on her own went along with the applicant and she was tender relationship with the applicant and wants to marry with the applicant but the the family members of the victim do not want to marry with the applicant, consequently on her own she joined the company of the applicant and went to Jalandhar and remained with the applicant as husband and wife and on the top of it she has declined to get her medical examination.The applicant is in jail since 30.06.2019 and hence the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Let the applicant Rahul, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
365,896
Acquitted co-accused Biharilal and Taradevi are the parents of appellants/Anand Kumar, while acquitted co-accused Akhil Kumar and his wife Renu are his brother and sister-in-laws respectively.Taradevi (P.W.7) is the mother, Santosh (P.W.9) is the brother, Prabha Vishnu Gupta (P.W.10) is the younger sister, Anil Kumar (P.W.4) is the cousin (uncle's son) and Dinesh (P.W.8) is the cousin (material aunt's) son of deceased Ranjana.It is also not disputed that at the time of marriage of the deceased Ranjana with the accused/appellant Anand Kumar, a Slim of Rs. 21,000 was paid to him by bank Draft by Ranjana's mother Taradevi (P.W7).Deceased Ranjana, after her marriage, had visited her mother at: Amravati at the time of Holi Festival and thereafter, she was taken back to Bhopal by the accused/appellant Anand Kumar.The wedding of Prabha Gupta (P.W.10) took place at Jabalpur in July, 1991, which was, attended by the accused/appellant Anand Kumar and his wife deceased Ranjana.Deceased Ranjana thereafter went back with the accused/appellant and continued to live with him till her death at Bhopal.It is also not in dispute that on 23-3-1992 at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased Ranjana was admitted in Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal in serious condition, as a case of poisoning and expired after about half an hour of her admission in the hospital.The prosecution case stated in brief is that the accused/appellant and his family members, from the time of marriage, continuously made demands and asked the deceased to bring money from her parents.She was being maltreated by the accused/appellant and his family members.At time of marriage of accused/appellant with Ranjana, in addition to the' amount of Rs. 21,000/- paid by Taradevi (P.W.7) by Demand' Draft, a cash amount of Rs. 4;000/- was also paid, besides gold, clothes, etc. The family members of the accused/appellant were not satisfied with the Clothes given by way of presents at the time of marriage, hence another set of clothes worth about Rs. 10,000/- were purchased from Bhopal for the family members of the accused/appellant.During negotiations of marriage, the co-accused, Akhilesh, the elder brother of the accused/appellant, demanded that a sum of Rs. 27,000/- be given to meet the fare of the Barat and desired that a Godrej Almirah be also given.Taradevi (P.W.7) had, however, given only Rs. 20,000/-towards the above demand.After the marriage also, the demand from the deceased Ranjana was continued to be made and deceased Ranjana was asked to bring Rs. 20,000/- by the accused/appellant.She was being maltreated because of the non-fulfilment of the demand.At the time of marriage of Prabha Gupta (P.W.10) in the month of July, 1991, the accused/appellant had again made the demand of Rs. 20,000/- and had created a scene and assaulted Ranjana as the demand was not met.Thereafter, deceased Ranjana was not permitted to talk to her family members on telephone and was not permitted to go to her parents as long as the above demand of Rs. 20,000/- was not met.The prosecution case further is that on 23-3-1992, deceased Ranjana consumed poison and was admitted in the Government Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal in serious condition, where she died after about half an hour.The information regarding the serious condition of deceased Ranjana was sent to her mother, Taradevi (P.W.7), upon which she along with her son Santosh (P.W.9) reached Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal where they were informed that Ranjana was dead.On admission of Ranjana in Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal Dr. Anoop Dubey (P.W.11) initially had examined her and found that she was in a very serious condition.The accused/appellant Anand Kumar had informed Dr. Anoop Dubey (P.W.11) that Ranjana had consumed poisonous insecticide 'Rogor' (Organo-Phosphorus) at about 6.40 P.M. She was admitted in the female ward and referred to R.M.O. (Medicine) for investigation and treatment.Dr. Nikheleshwar Prasad Verma (P.W.12) had then examined the deceased Ranjana, whom he found in an unconscious state.She was gasping.There was smell of Organo Phosphorus in her breath and she had a weak pulse and the blood pressure was not recordable.Despite treatment, Ranjana died within half an hour of her admission.Intimation of death of Ranjana was sent to police, which was recorded by Head Constable, Maanpal Singh (P.W.2) in the Roznamcha (Ex.P/2), on 23-3-1992 at 8.20 p.m. Merg was registered.After enquiry, City Superintendent of Police, S. R. Sharma (D.W.15) registered the offence punishable under section 304B of Indian Penal Code, as per report (Ex.P/20).The post mortem of the body was conducted by Dr. D. K. Satpathi (P.W.5).As per his report (Ex.P/4), he found that the death of Ranjana was due to respiratory failure, as a result of poisoning.He also found following injuries on the person of deceased Ranjana :-(i) Contusion with abrasion over left side of cheek 2.5 cm.left to left nasolatrial fold 3 cm.diameter circular in shape.JUDGMENT V.K. Agrawal, J.The facts not in dispute in the case are that the accused/appellant Anand Kumar was married to deceased Ranjana, alias, Reetu on 14-2-1989 at Amravati (Maharashtra).Abrasion 0.5 cm.diameter on left side;(ii) Superficial abrasion - on bridge of nose, left side transverse size 0.5 x 1 cm.;(iii) Contusion sup.laceration against lower left inciser transverse, size 0.5 x 0.2 cm.;(iv) Abrasion 2.5 cm.above mid of right eye-brow, obliquely transverse 0.5 x 0.2 cm.(v) Contusion on right cheek 3.5 cm.diameter where impression of the tooth in form of grove (depression) pressed;(vi) Abrasion 1 x 0.5 cm.on right above of nose base;(vii) Multiple abrasions on left knee 3.05 cm.to 0.5 x 0.2 cm.in various directions present;(viii) Abrasion on left tibial tuberosity size 2.1 cm.Obliquely transverse;(ix) Contusion over chil nearly in the mid line size 2 x 1 cm.more on left side obliquely verticle;(x) Abrasions over right wrist extension aspect 3 cm.above the wrist joint size 0.3 x 0.1 cm.obliquely verticle 1.5 cm, apart two in number;(xi) Abrasion on lateral aspect of right little finger 0.5 x 0.1 cm.obliquely verticle ;Dr. D. K. Satpathy (P.W.5) preserved the viscera of deceased Ranjana, which was sent for chemical analysis.The report (Ex.P/22) of Chemical Analyst confirmed the presence of poisonous Organo-Phosphorus insecticide in the viscera.After completion of other usual formalities of investigation, charge-sheet against the accused/appellant as well as acquitted co-accused Biharilal, Taradevi, Renu and Akhilesh Kumar was filed by P. S. Habibganj, Bhopal.The learned Sessions Judge framed charge for offences punishable under sections 304B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused.However, after trial, offence punishable under section 304B, Indian Penal Code was found proved against the accused/appellant alone.Remaining co-accused were found not guilty of the said offences and were acquitted.The accused/appellant was convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.As pointed out earlier, admittedly, deceased Ranjana was married to accused Anand Kumar on 14th February, 1989 as would also be evidenced by the statement of Prabha Gupta (P.W.10), who is the younger sister of the deceased.The statements of Dr. A. K. Dubey (P.W.11) and Dr. N. P. Verma (P.W.12) show that deceased Ranjana was admitted in the Hamidia Hospital on 23-3-1992 in a serious condition and died due to Organo Phosphorus poisoning within half an hour of her admission in the hospital, despite treatment given to her.Dr. Satpathy (P.W.5) has conducted post mortem examination on the body of Ranjana, alias, Reetu and found the injuries as per his report (Ex.P/4), which have been detailed above, Dr. Satpathy (P.W.5) opined that the death of Ranjana took place on account of asphyxia resulting from poisoning.He has also opined that the injuries found on the person of Ranjana were caused during 24 hours prior to her death.It would also appear that Ranjana had consumed poisonous insecticide 'Rogor'.The presence of 'Rogor' was found in the viscera in the report of the Chemical Analyst (Ex.P/22).Though some efforts had been made by adducing defence evidence to indicate that deceased Ranjana had consumed poison by accident, as stated by Pt.Radhe Shyam Pathak (D.W.3) and Preeti Gupta (D.W.6), but since the incident of consuming insecticide occurred at about 5.30 p.m. during day time, while a 'Katha' was going on at the house of the accused/appellant, there does not appear to be any chance for deceased Ranjana to have consumed insecticide 'Rogor' % accident.There does not appear to be any material to even suspect that the deceased consumed poison by accident.In fact, there has been no suggestion in cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses on the point and there does not appear to be any basis whatsoever to infer that Ranjana had consumed the insecticide by accident.Therefore, the evidence adduced in defence in this regard obviously is an afterthought, as has been rightly concluded after appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court.It is thus clear that deceased Ranjana after about 3 years of her marriage with the accused/appellant Anand Kumar committed suicide by poisoning herself.Thus her death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances.Therefore, the vital point that now required to be considered is, 'whether Ranjana was subjected to cruelty by accused/appellant for or in connection with demand for dowry, soon before her death?"Coming to the evidence on the point, Taradevi (P.W.7), who is the mother of the deceased, has stated that at the time of engagement of deceased Ranjana, her would be in laws had demanded Rs. 25,000/-, which was paid in the shape of Bank Draft of Rs. 21,000/- and cash amount of Rs. 4,000/-.Besides, she had also presented a gold ring, gold chain, clothes, etc. However, since the clothes were not approved, other set of clothes was purchased from Bhopal and given to the family members of the accused/appellant.She has further stated that thereafter Akhilesh (acquitted co-accused) came for finalising the arrangements regarding marriage.He again demanded Rs. 27,000/- in cash and a Godrej Almirah.Taradevi (P.W. 7) expressed her inability to fulfil the above demand upon which, Akhilesh had threatened that they would not perform the marriage, whereafter Taradevi (P.W.7) paid Rs. 20,000V- towards the above demand.She has also stated that thereafter at the time of marriage, gold ornaments weighing about 10-11 tolas and silver ornaments were also given by her.It also appears from the statement of Tara Devi (P.W.7) that there was a miscarriage of Ranjana and the mother-in-law asked Taradevi to take Ranjana with her for giving her proper nourishment and diet upon which, she had taken Ranjana with her and Ranjana remained with her for about 1 1/2 months, after which the accused/appellant had taken her back to Bhopal.Taradevi (P.W.7) further states that at the time of marriage of her younger daughter Prabha (P.W.10) at Jabalpur, the accused/appellant Anand Kumar misbehaved and created a scene.He also had beaten Ranjana and prepared to leave.When Taradevi (P.W.7) asked Ranjana as to what the matter was, Ranjana told her that accused/appellant Anand was demanding Rs. 20,000/- and had asked her to ask for the money from her mother, but Ranjana had refused to accede to his demand, upon which he had beaten Ranjana.(P.W. 7) further states that thereafter she had persuaded the accused/appellant not to behave in that manner.The above statement of Taradevi (P.W.7) is corroborated by the statement of her younger daughter Prabha (P.W. 10), who has also stated that accused/appellant got drunk a day before her marriage at Jabalpur.Her elder sister deceased Ranjana on being asked had told Prabha that the accused/appellant was demanding Rs. 20,000/-, but Ranjana expressed her inability to do so and she had told the accused/appellant that it would not be possible for her to make the demand from her mother on the occasion of marriage of her younger sister upon which the accused/appellant had beaten Ranjana.Santosh (P.W.9) has also narrated the above incident.All the above witnesses have thus consistently stated that on the occasion of marriage of Prabha (P.W. 10), accused/appellant got drunk, created a scene and had demanded that Ranjana should ask her mother to pay rupees twenty thousand to the accused/appellant.Deceased Ranjana obviously thought it improper to make such a demand from her mother on the occasion of marriage of her younger sister Prabha (P.W. 10), apparently on consideration that her mother was required to incur heavy expenses in the marriage.This refusal on the part of Ranjana appears to have infuriated the accused/appellant.Ranjana was, therefore, assaulted and beaten by the accused/appellant, who also prepared to leave the venue of marriage, but was prevented to do so by Ranjana's mother Taradevi (P.W.7).It would also appear from the statement of Taradevi (P.W.7) that the accused/appellant had earlier on the same occasion, misbehaved with her and on being greeted by her, he had refused to recognise her and asked her as to who she was.Obviously, behaviour of the accused/appellant, as-above, was due to non-fulfilment of his demand of Rs. 20,000/-, which he wanted Ranjana to make from her mother, for which deceased Ranjana was not agreeable.The learned trial Court, after discussion and appreciation of evidence in this regard has concluded that Rs. 20,000/- were demanded by the accused/appellant, which finding appears to be absolutely justified, as detailed above.Learned counsel for the accused/appellant has urged in this connection that demand by the accused/appellant was not a demand for 'dowry' and it was made only for starting his own business.It has also been urged that, even assuming such a demand was made, it was admittedly in the month of July, 1991, i.e. much prior to the death of deceased Ranjana on 23-2-1992 and, therefore, cannot be said to have been made soon before the death of deceased Ranjana.In Bidlan's case (supra), which was for offence punishable under section 498A of Indian Penal Code, the Bombay High Court has observed that, A reasonable nexus has to be established between the cruelty and the suicide in order to make good the offence of cruelty.Alternatively, the cruelty established has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to cornmit suicide.If suicide is established it has further to be established that it was occasioned on account of cruelty which was of sufficient gravity so as to lead a reasonable person placed in similar circumstances to commit suicide.' In Ramesh Chandra's case (supra), which again was a case of offence punishable under section 498A, Indian Penal Code, the Allahabad High Court has observed that the complaint could succeed only if it can be proved that there was an 'unlawful' demand by the husband.In Shyama Devi's case (supra), the Calcutta High Court, after consideration of evidence on record, concluded that cruelty of a nature as to lead to suicide was not proved in that case.In the instant case, the demand and maltreatment with the deceased Ranjana by the accused/appellant on the occasion of marriage of Prabha (P.W.10) in July, 91 has amply been proved from the evidence on record.Now, the evidence regarding the conduct of the accused/appellant and developments after the marriage of Prabha Gupta may be briefly taken into consideration; Santosh (P.W9) who is the younger brother of deceased Ranjana has stated that in the month of March, 1992 he had telephoned the accused/appellant that he wishes to take his sister Ranjana to Amravati during the festival of Holi.However, the accused/appellant had refused to accede to his request and had stated that Ranjana would not be sent to her parents' home till the demand of Rs. 20,000 was met.Santosh (PW.9) has further stated that though he wanted to take his sister, deceased Ranjana, the accused/appellant did not permit him to do so.The above statement of Santosh (P.W.9) is supported by the statement of Prabha Vishnu Gupta (P.W.10), who has stated that when she had gone to attend the festival of Holi in the month of March, 1992, she had requested her mother that her sister be also called to Amravati, but her brother Santosh told her that the accused/appellant was demanding money and had stated that Ranjana would only be sent, if his demand was met.Taradevi (P.W.7), the mother of deceased Ranjana has stated in para 8 that though her son Santosh (P.W.9) had telephoned the accused/appellant twice or thrice, requesting that Ranjana be sent, the accused/appellant refused to send her and also did not permit her to talk to Santosh on phone.The above conduct on the part of the accused/appellant clearly indicates that the accused/appellant even after the marriage of Prabha Vishnu Gupta (P.W.10) in the month of July, 1991 persisted in his demand of Rs. 20,000/- and continued to misbehave with the family members of Ranjana and even did not permit her to talk on telephone.She was also not permitted to visit her mother's place at Amravati, during the festival of Holi in the year 1992, as the accused/appellant insisted that unless his demand was met Ranjana would not be sent to her mother's place.He did not permit the deceased Ranjana to talk to her family members even on phone.She had to get ready early in the morning at 4.00 A.M. and had to work till 10.00 P.M. in the night.She was not permitted to talk on telephone and she was scolded over petty matters.Such maltreatment to deceased Ranjana would not have meted out to her unless the accused/appellant was party to it.It may also be noted that the deceased had several injuries on her person, as has been stated and reported by Dr. D. K. Satpathy (P.W.5).Those injuries were ante mortem and caused within 24 hours of the death of deceased Ranjana.No reasonable explanation of those injuries has been given on behalf of the accused/appellant.Presumably, the deceased was assaulted and maltreated just before her death, which might have been the immediate cause for consuming poison by deceased Ranjana.The greed and lust for money of accused/appellant is apparent from his conduct, from the time marriage was fixed and it is clear that on one pretext or the other, demand for money was continuously being made.The accused/appellant made a specific demand of Rs. 20,000/- at the time of marriage of Prabha Vishnu Gupta (P.W.10) in July, 1991, which the deceased refused to fulfil.The accused/appellant took it ill and subsequently not only refused permission to the deceased to visit her mother's place at the time of Holi in the year 1992, but also did not permit her to talk to her brother even on telephone.Ranjana was assaulted just before her death, due to which several injuries were sustained by her.All these circumstances would indicate that the accused/appellant was continuously harassing and illtreating the deceased Ranjana on non fulfilment by her of his demand for money, which would certainly amount to cruelty in the circumstances of the case.It also appears that she was assaulted just prior to her death.She was not even permitted to talk to her close relatives on phone and to visit her mother.Clearly, therefore, she was subjected to continuous harassment and torture- both mental and physical - which certainly would amount to cruelty, by the accused/appellant in connection with his demand for dowry.This behaviour of accused/appellant ultimately led Ranjana to commit suicide.
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
36,603,980
This appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 21.08.2018 made in Cr.M.P.No.2492 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and release the appellant /accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.262 of 2014 and allow the appeal.2.None appeared on behalf of the appellant.4.The application for granting bail before the Sessions Judge was dismissed.This Court had also dismissed those appeals.Subsequently, charge sheet was also filed and thereafter, NBW was issued against the appellant.The said NBW was executed, the appellant washttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 arrested and produced before the Court.The appellant before filing this appeal, filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.2492 of 2018, before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli (FAC), for considering his bail.The same was also dismissed.Now once again the appellant has filed this appeal.5.On a perusal of the entire records and considering the behavior of the appellant, three times the applications for bail were dismissed.Thereafter, he absconded and NBW was issued.6.Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, if he is released on bail once again, it is possibility of him to abscond and the same will lead to protract the further proceedings of the case.7.Under the said circumstances, this Court finds that no merits in this appeal to take a different view, and this Court is not inclined to allow this appeal.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.05.12.2018 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No dashttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 P.VELMURUGAN,J.1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.2.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.CRL.A.(MD)No.534 of 2018 05.12.2018http://www.judis.nic.in
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.